May a lawyer admitted only in New Jersey and DC who works as a salaried associate at a New York firm simultaneously run a solo New Jersey practice, and what New York-rules duties attach to the conflicts, advertising, and trust-account aspects?
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1295: Conflicts, Advertising, and Trust Accounts When Opening a Solo Practice
Short answer: The opinion concludes the New York Rules do not prohibit a lawyer from simultaneously working at two firms, but a lawyer who is "associated" with both firms (the test is fact-specific and turns on access to confidential client information) carries Rule 1.10 imputed conflicts across both; screening is not a cure for these conflicts under New York's amended Rule 1.10(c). Advertising whose predominant effect is in New York must satisfy Rule 7.1 (and the lawyer must indicate practice limitations because not admitted in New York); funds held incident to New York practice must comply with Rule 1.15. UPL questions about the inquirer's practice posture are outside the committee's jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York 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 a lawyer admitted in New Jersey and the District of Columbia (but not New York) who practices federal immigration law as a salaried associate at a New York City firm. The inquirer plans to open a solo immigration firm in New Jersey while continuing the New York employment, and asks four questions.
On choice of law, the opinion observes that whether the inquirer can practice federal immigration law in New York without UPL is a legal question (governed by Judiciary Law §§ 478, 484) outside the committee's jurisdiction. The opinion assumes the inquirer is not engaged in UPL. Per Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) and the analysis in N.Y. State 1275 (2024) and N.Y. State 1058 (2015), if the inquirer is deemed licensed in New York for choice-of-law purposes and principally practices in New York, New York Rules apply to the New York conduct unless the predominant effect of particular conduct is in another jurisdiction.
On conflicts, the opinion concludes the inquirer would be "associated" with both firms for Rule 1.10 purposes (full-time at New York; certainly at his own firm), so the two firms must be treated as one for conflict-check purposes; the firms must communicate and share information to check conflicts. Per the opinion, screening is not an available cure: New York's January 1, 2025 amendment to Rule 1.10(c) permits screening only for certain lateral conflicts, which does not extend to multi-firm-association conflicts. Rule 1.7(b) consent is the only path, and only where the conflict is consentable.
On advertising, the opinion concludes that to the extent any advertising's "predominant effect" is in New York (Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii)) or qualifies as a solicitation of New York residents (Rule 7.3(i)), New York's Rule 7.1 applies. The inquirer, who is not admitted in New York, must indicate practice limitations on letterhead and any advertising (citing N.Y. State 1254 (2023)). Rule 7.5(b)(iii) prohibits firm names misleading as to the identity of the practicing lawyers; the opinion observes that disclaiming affiliation with the New York firm may be advisable if confusion could arise.
On trust accounts, the opinion concludes Rule 1.15 applies to funds the inquirer possesses incident to New York practice. The Rules do not prohibit maintaining separate trust accounts for the two firms (and circumstances may require it); they also do not prohibit comingling earned income from the two practices.
On sharing office expenses, the opinion concludes the Rules permit it, but warns (citing N.Y. State 793 (2006)) that an expense-sharing agreement between firms holding themselves out as separate may support a finding of Rule 1.10 association.
In practice
Under this opinion, the inquirer (and the New York firm) must implement a joint conflict-checking process that treats both firms as one for purposes of Rule 1.10. The opinion identifies Rule 1.7(b) informed consent confirmed in writing as the only available path to clear an imputed conflict that arises from the multi-firm association; screening will not work. Per the opinion, the inquirer's advertising and solicitation must satisfy New York's Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.3 to the extent the predominant effect is in New York or the audience is New York residents; the inquirer's letterhead must indicate non-admission in New York. Funds held incident to New York practice must comply with Rule 1.15's account and recordkeeping requirements.
Common questions
Q: Can the inquirer use screening to avoid imputed conflicts between his solo NJ firm and the NY firm?
A: The opinion concludes no. The opinion identifies the January 1, 2025 amendment to Rule 1.10(c) as permitting screening only for certain lateral conflicts, not for multi-firm-association conflicts. Per the opinion, "the inquirer would not be able to avoid conflicts of interest for himself or others at the New York firm by erecting screening measures."
Q: Are the inquirer's solo-firm conflicts imputed to the New York firm's other lawyers?
A: Per Rule 1.10(a) and the opinion's analysis, yes if the inquirer is "associated" with the New York firm (the test turns on full-time status, access to confidential information, etc.). The opinion concludes the inquirer, as the firm's only salaried associate, is associated with the firm; therefore the conflicts run both ways.
Q: When do New York's advertising rules apply to the solo NJ firm's marketing?
A: The opinion concludes Rule 7.1 applies to any advertising whose "predominant effect" is in New York under Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii). The opinion also notes Rule 7.3(i): New York's solicitation rule applies to a lawyer not admitted in New York who solicits retention by New York residents. The opinion adds that any New York-directed advertising should indicate the inquirer's practice limitations because the inquirer is not admitted in New York.
Q: Does the inquirer need separate trust accounts for the two firms?
A: The opinion concludes the Rules do not prohibit separate trust accounts and depending on the circumstances may require them. Per Rule 1.15(b), funds held incident to New York practice must be in a New York banking institution providing dishonored-check reports under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1300, and the account must be labeled per Rule 1.15(b)(2).
Q: Can the two firms share office expenses?
A: Per the opinion, yes, but with a warning. The opinion notes that an expense-sharing agreement between firms that hold themselves out as separate "may support the argument that the two firms are associated for purposes of Rule 1.10" (citing N.Y. State 793 (2006)).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts, as amended Nov. 10, 2025 to use a "directly adverse" test), Rule 1.9 (former-client conflicts), Rule 1.10 (imputation; conflict-check systems; the January 1, 2025 lateral-screening amendment), Rule 1.15 (trust accounts and bookkeeping), Rule 7.1 (advertising), Rule 7.3 (solicitation, including 7.3(i) reaching out-of-state lawyers soliciting NY residents), Rule 7.5(b)(iii) (firm-name restrictions), and Rule 8.5 (choice of law). The opinion is bounded by the committee's jurisdiction: UPL questions about New Jersey lawyers practicing federal law in New York and questions of New Jersey or D.C. rules are not addressed.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- N.Y. RPC 1.7(a), (b) (current-client conflicts; consent)
- N.Y. RPC 1.9(a), (c) (former-client conflicts; confidentiality)
- N.Y. RPC 1.10(a), (c), (d), (f) (imputation; lateral-screening amendment; conflict-check systems)
- N.Y. RPC 1.15(a), (b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (d) (trust accounts; recordkeeping)
- N.Y. RPC 7.1(a)(1), (f), (h), (k) (advertising)
- N.Y. RPC 7.3(c), (i) (solicitation; reach to out-of-state lawyers)
- N.Y. RPC 7.5(b)(iii) (firm-name restrictions)
- N.Y. RPC 8.5(b)(2)(ii) (choice of law: predominant-effect test)
Statutes:
- N.Y. Judiciary Law §§ 478, 484 (statutory UPL prohibitions; noted as outside the committee's jurisdiction)
- 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1300 (dishonored-check reports for special accounts)
Cases:
- Cinema 5 Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384 (2d Cir. 1976), cited on imputed conflicts.
- Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Village of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2005), noted as illustrating court treatment of screening in disqualification motions.
- Maricultura del Norte v. Worldbusiness Capital, 2015 WL 1062167 (S.D.N.Y.), noted on the same point.
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1275 (2024): choice of law for lawyer licensed in multiple jurisdictions.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1254 (2023): practice-limitation indications on letterhead and advertising for non-admitted lawyers.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1137 (2017): "of counsel" association under Rule 1.10.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1105 (2016): two firms treated as one for conflicts purposes.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1093 (2016): imputed conflicts.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1058 (2015): out-of-state lawyer practicing federal immigration law; trust-account choice of law.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 876 (2011): two firms treated as one for conflicts purposes.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 863 (2011): out-of-state lawyer's practice in New York limited to federal immigration law.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 862 (2011): part-time lawyer's "associated" status.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 793 (2006): expense sharing and the inference of association.
- N.Y. City Bar Op. 2007-02 (2007): fact-specific test for "associated" status.