Can a New York lawyer form a law partnership with an Italian law firm whose lawyers are not admitted in the United States?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2023. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquirer is a solo practitioner admitted only in New York, with an office only in New York. He proposed to form a separate limited liability partnership for the practice of law with an Italian firm; none of the Italian partners are licensed in New York or anywhere else in the United States, and the Italian firm would continue to practice in Italy in a separate entity.
On the first question, the opinion concludes that because the inquirer is admitted in New York, he is always subject to New York's disciplinary authority under Rule 8.5(a). The opinion notes that New York's Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) "predominant effect" choice-of-law principle does not pull in another jurisdiction here, because, unlike ABA Model Rule 8.5(b)(2), New York's version applies only to lawyers admitted in more than one jurisdiction, and the inquirer is admitted only in New York.
On the second question, the opinion reaffirms the committee's longstanding view that although Rule 5.4(b) bars a lawyer from forming a partnership with a nonlawyer to practice law, a New York lawyer may partner with a lawyer licensed in another jurisdiction if, on independent inquiry, the New York lawyer is satisfied that the foreign lawyer's training and ethical standards are comparable to an American lawyer's. The opinion ties this to N.Y. State 646 (1993) and N.Y. State 1072 (2015) (Japanese benrishi), reasoning that the comparability requirement protects the New York lawyer's ability to meet New York's ethical standards, including confidentiality.
On the third question, the opinion applies Rule 1.10(a): because the New York lawyer is a common partner in both his own firm and the new LLP, the firms are treated as one for conflicts purposes, so each firm's conflicts are imputed to the other, and the New York lawyer must include the Italian firm's engagements in his conflict-checking system under Rule 1.10(e).
In practice
Under this opinion, a partnership between a New York-admitted lawyer and a foreign law firm is permitted where the New York lawyer has independently satisfied himself that the foreign lawyers' training and ethical standards are comparable to an American lawyer's. Per the opinion, once the partnership is formed, the New York lawyer and the foreign firm must treat each other's clients as their own for conflicts purposes under Rule 1.10(a), and the conflict-checking system must include the foreign firm's matters.
Common questions
Q: Which jurisdiction's ethics rules govern a New York solo who partners with a foreign firm?
A: Per the opinion, New York's, under Rule 8.5(a), because the inquirer is admitted in New York and is always subject to New York's disciplinary authority. The opinion notes New York's choice-of-law rule does not shift this because the inquirer is admitted only in New York.
Q: Is a foreign lawyer treated as a "nonlawyer" under Rule 5.4(b)'s ban on lawyer-nonlawyer partnerships?
A: Per the opinion, no, provided the New York lawyer is satisfied on independent inquiry that the foreign lawyer's training and ethical standards are comparable to an American lawyer's. On that condition, the partnership does not violate Rule 5.4(b).
Q: Whose conflicts must be checked once the partnership is formed?
A: Per the opinion, both firms', because under Rule 1.10(a) the firms sharing a common partner are treated as one, and the New York lawyer must include the Italian firm's engagements in his conflict-checking system under Rule 1.10(e).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rule 5.4(b) (no partnership with a nonlawyer to practice law), Rule 8.5(a) and 8.5(b)(2)(ii) (disciplinary authority and choice of law), and Rule 1.10(a) and (e) (imputation of conflicts and the duty to check conflicts). These correspond to ABA Model Rules 5.4, 8.5, and 1.10. The opinion points out that New York's Rule 8.5(b)(2) differs from the ABA Model Rule by applying only to lawyers admitted in more than one jurisdiction.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.10(a) & (e), 5.4(b), 8.5(a), 8.5(b)(2)(ii)
- ABA Model Rules 1.10, 5.4, 8.5 (analogues; the opinion notes New York's 8.5(b)(2) differs)
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 646 (1993): comparable foreign training and ethics standard for partnership
- N.Y. State 1072 (2015): partnership with a Japanese benrishi
- N.Y. State 876 (2011): firms sharing a common lawyer treated as one for imputation
- N.Y. State 542 (1982): Rule 5.4 partnership restrictions
See also
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1290: Foreign Law-Firm Partners in NY LLP
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1291: New York Lawyers and Out-of-State ABS
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1284: Fees With Foreign-Licensed Lawyer
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1250/
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2023 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.