Can a lawyer licensed only in another state primarily practice in Illinois if an Illinois-licensed partner supervises the Illinois matters?

Plain-English summary

Two lawyers proposed a 50/50 firm: one licensed only in Illinois, one licensed only in State X. Both would live and primarily work in Illinois, with the State X lawyer making frequent trips home to build a client base there. The Illinois lawyer would supervise all Illinois-client matters, sign all Illinois pleadings, make all Illinois court appearances, and handle Illinois closings; the State X lawyer would network and market in Illinois while disclosing, on letterhead and in retainer agreements, that he is not licensed in Illinois. The inquiry asked whether the State X lawyer would be engaged in unauthorized practice under Rule 5.5, and whether a virtual office would change the answer.

The opinion concludes the arrangement violates Rule 5.5(b). Paragraph (b)(1) bars a lawyer not admitted in Illinois from establishing an office or other systematic and continuous presence in Illinois for the practice of law, and (b)(2) bars holding out as admitted here. Because the State X lawyer would work primarily in Illinois, he would have a systematic and continuous presence for the practice of law in violation of (b)(1); accurately stating his state of admission does not cure the violation, which is independent of any misrepresentation. The safe harbors in Rule 5.5(c) (temporary practice) and (d) (in-house and federal practice) do not apply, and the Illinois lawyer's personal handling of court and closings and supervision does not change the result.

On the second question, the opinion holds a virtual office does not help. Comment 4 to Rule 5.5 states presence may be systematic and continuous even if the lawyer is not physically present, so a State X lawyer doing work for Illinois clients and seeking Illinois work has a systematic and continuous presence whether the office is physical or virtual (citing Ohio Op. 2011-2). The Illinois lawyer would be subject to discipline under Rule 5.5(a) for assisting unauthorized practice, and the State X lawyer would be subject to Illinois discipline under Rule 8.5(a).

In practice

The opinion holds that Rule 5.5(b) turns on whether the non-admitted lawyer has a systematic and continuous presence in Illinois for the practice of law, and that supervision by an Illinois partner, accurate disclosure of licensure, and even a non-Illinois virtual office do not authorize an out-of-state lawyer to make Illinois his primary place of practice. It holds the Illinois-licensed partner risks discipline under Rule 5.5(a) for assisting, and the non-admitted lawyer is subject to Illinois disciplinary authority under Rule 8.5(a). The opinion does not bar legitimate multijurisdictional practice; it expects lawyers in such firms to practice primarily in their own states of admission.

Common questions

Q: Can an out-of-state lawyer practice in Illinois if an Illinois partner supervises?

A: No, not as a primary practice. The opinion holds Rule 5.5(b)(1) bars the non-admitted lawyer's systematic and continuous presence in Illinois for the practice of law, and an Illinois partner's supervision does not authorize it.

Q: Does accurately disclosing the lawyer's licensure fix the problem?

A: No. The opinion holds the Rule 5.5(b)(1) violation is the systematic and continuous presence itself, independent of any representation about bar admission; accurate disclosure does not cure it.

Q: Does using a virtual office avoid the rule?

A: No. The opinion relies on Comment 4 to Rule 5.5 that presence can be systematic and continuous without being physical, so a virtual office serving Illinois clients still establishes the prohibited presence.

Q: Who can be disciplined?

A: Both. The opinion concludes the non-admitted lawyer is subject to Illinois discipline under Rule 8.5(a), and the Illinois-licensed lawyer is subject to discipline under Rule 5.5(a) for assisting the unauthorized practice.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (Model Rule 5.5, unauthorized and multijurisdictional practice), focusing on 5.5(b)'s bar on a non-admitted lawyer's systematic and continuous presence and 5.5(a)'s bar on assisting unauthorized practice, read with Comment 4. It also applies Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications) and Rule 8.5(a) (disciplinary authority over a lawyer offering legal services in the jurisdiction).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois RPC 5.5(a), 5.5(b) (unauthorized and multijurisdictional practice) / MR 5.5
• Illinois RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications) / MR 7.1
• Illinois RPC 8.5(a) (disciplinary authority) / MR 8.5

Rules and authority cited:

• Illinois Supreme Court Rule 721(a)(4) (non-admitted shareholders may not practice in Illinois)
• ABA Report of the Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice (2002)
• Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline Op. 2011-2: virtual presence can be systematic and continuous

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 13-08: Practicing Immigration Law in Illinois by a Non-Illinois Lawyer
• ISBA Ethics Op. 24-01: Illinois Lawyer Acting as Local Counsel in a Criminal Matter
• NYC Bar Ethics Op. 2013-3: Of-Counsel Designation for an Attorney Practicing Abroad

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/1209