Which state's rules govern a New York-admitted lawyer's duty to report misconduct when she mainly practices immigration law in another state?
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1275: Choice of Law for a Cross-Border Immigration Practice
Short answer: The opinion concludes that a lawyer admitted in New York who principally practices before federal immigration courts in another state must comply with that other state's Rules of Professional Conduct on reporting misconduct, because under Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices govern conduct not connected to a court proceeding.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's view of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
The inquirer is admitted only in New York (State A) but practices almost exclusively before federal immigration courts in another state (State B). While working a matter, he learned that a lawyer admitted in a third state (State C) may have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in a matter not connected to a court proceeding. He asks whether he has a duty to report that potential violation.
Rule 8.3(a) requires a lawyer who knows of another lawyer's violation raising a substantial question of honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to report it. The threshold question is whether New York's Rules apply, which is governed by Rule 8.5. Under Rule 8.5(a), a New York-admitted lawyer is subject to New York's disciplinary authority wherever the conduct occurs, but the rules actually applied depend on the choice-of-law provisions of Rule 8.5(b).
Because the reporting question is not "conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court" under Rule 8.5(b)(1), the opinion applies Rule 8.5(b)(2), which covers "any other conduct." Although the inquirer is formally admitted only in New York, the opinion (following N.Y. State 1058) treats a lawyer permitted to practice in another jurisdiction without formal admission as "licensed to practice" there. Because the inquirer is thus licensed in both New York and State B and principally practices in State B, Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) makes State B's Rules govern his reporting obligation. The opinion adds that under Rule 8.5(a) both states may discipline him for the same conduct, and it declines to opine on whether the rules of the immigration courts or any other jurisdiction require him to report.
In practice
Under this opinion, conduct that involves a New York-admitted lawyer who is permitted to practice immigration law in another state and practices there almost exclusively is governed, for a reporting question not tied to a court proceeding, by that other state's rules under Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii). Per the opinion, the lawyer remains subject to New York's disciplinary authority under Rule 8.5(a), but New York would apply the other state's rules.
Common questions
Q: Does Rule 8.3 require a NY lawyer practicing elsewhere to report another lawyer's misconduct?
A: Per the opinion, that depends on which jurisdiction's rules apply. Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) directs that the rules of the state where the lawyer principally practices govern, so that state's reporting rule controls.
Q: Is a lawyer "licensed" in a state where she only practices federal immigration law?
A: Per the opinion, treated as yes. Citing N.Y. State 1058, a lawyer permitted to practice in another jurisdiction without formal admission should be deemed "licensed to practice" there for Rule 8.5(b) purposes.
Q: Can two states discipline the lawyer for the same conduct?
A: Per the opinion, yes. Rule 8.5(a) provides that a lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both New York and another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted for the same conduct.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rule 8.5 (disciplinary authority and choice of law), including the choice-of-law rules in Rule 8.5(b)(1) and (b)(2), and Rule 8.3(a) (reporting professional misconduct). These correspond to ABA Model Rules 8.5 and 8.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3(a), 8.5(a), 8.5(b)
- ABA Model Rules 8.5, 8.3 (analogues)
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 1058 (2015): a lawyer permitted to practice elsewhere is deemed "licensed" there; immigration practice
- N.Y. State 1054 (2015); 1042 (2014); 1041 (2014); 815 (2007): applying Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii)
- N.Y. State 750 (2001): immigration lawyer governed by the rules of the state of principal practice
See also
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1284: Multijurisdictional Practice; Referral Fees
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1274: Government Lawyer vs. a Former Client