May an out-of-state lawyer with no Connecticut presence remotely advise a Connecticut client only about federal law?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer was licensed and maintained an office in another state. The proposed engagement concerned only HIPAA, involved advice by telephone, email, or other telecommunications, and included written disclosure that the lawyer was not admitted in Connecticut, could not advise on Connecticut law, and would limit the representation to federal-law compliance.

The Committee concludes that the representation was not practice "in" Connecticut. The client's location was the only Connecticut connection: the lawyer had no office or physical presence there, did not solicit or advertise there, did not hold herself out as Connecticut counsel, and would not work on Connecticut law or proceedings.

The opinion also concludes that, even if the work were treated as occurring in Connecticut, Practice Book § 2-44A(b)(8) and Rule 5.5(d)(2) authorized the federal-law services described. The authorization does not permit the lawyer to establish a Connecticut physical presence or advertise services to Connecticut residents.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Connecticut client's location does not by itself turn remote advice from an out-of-state office into practice in Connecticut. The holding depends on the exclusively federal subject, absence of a local presence or solicitation, and written disclosure of the lawyer's licensing and scope limits.

Common questions

Q: Is the client's Connecticut location alone enough to make the work practice in Connecticut?

A: No. The Committee says the client's location was the only Connecticut nexus and found no authority treating that fact alone as practice in the state.

Q: May the lawyer advise on Connecticut law?

A: No under the proposed engagement. The lawyer would disclose in writing that she was not authorized to advise on Connecticut-law issues.

Q: Does it matter that all advice is delivered remotely?

A: Yes to the stated facts. The lawyer and firm had no Connecticut physical presence, and no part of the representation would be carried out there.

Q: What if the work is considered practice in Connecticut?

A: The opinion concludes that the federal-law exceptions in Practice Book § 2-44A(b)(8) and Rule 5.5(d)(2) cover the contemplated services.

Q: May the lawyer open an office or advertise in Connecticut?

A: Not under the authorization described. The opinion states that the exception is not broad enough to permit a Connecticut physical presence or advertising to Connecticut residents.

Background and rules framework

Rule 5.5 and Practice Book § 2-44A govern unauthorized practice in Connecticut. Rule 5.5(d)(2) permits a lawyer admitted elsewhere to provide services authorized by federal or other law or rule, and Practice Book § 2-44A(b)(8) excludes activities preempted by federal law from unauthorized practice.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 5.5(d)(2)

Statutes and court rules:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-88, practice of law by persons not admitted
• Connecticut Practice Book § 2-44A and § 2-44A(b)(8)
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

Other authorities:

• Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 3 comment e (2000), interstate communications from a home-state office

Other opinions cited:

• Connecticut Informal Opinion 88-09, construing statutory references to legal practice as practice in Connecticut

See also

• New Mexico Ethics Op. 2024-001: Practicing law virtually
• OSB Ethics Op. 2022-200: Remote work and unauthorized practice
• Virginia LEO 1856: Scope of practice for a foreign lawyer

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 18-02