If a lawyer is admitted in New York and another state, whose ethics rules govern conduct that happens in the other state?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer practiced in Chicago in immigration matters and was admitted in both New York and Illinois, and asked which jurisdiction's ethics rules governed a possible conflict involving a client and a former client where the conduct took place outside New York. The committee applied DR 1-105, the choice-of-law rule added to the Code in 1999.

DR 1-105(A) establishes that a lawyer licensed in New York is subject to New York's disciplinary authority regardless of where the conduct occurs. DR 1-105(B) then governs which rules of professional conduct New York's authorities apply in exercising that jurisdiction. For conduct in connection with a proceeding before a court in which the lawyer has been admitted to practice, the rules of the jurisdiction where the court sits apply. For other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction where the lawyer principally practices apply, unless the particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed, in which case that jurisdiction's rules apply.

The committee concluded that because the inquirer practiced principally in Illinois and the conduct in question had its predominant effect there, Illinois's ethics rules applied. It added that the result would be the same even if the lawyer principally practiced in New York, because the particular conduct's predominant effect was in Illinois. The committee compared N.Y. City 1999-7, where New York rules applied because the lawyer's office was in New York and all legal services were performed there even though clients resided and petitions were filed in New Jersey.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, under New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which New York replaced with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a lawyer admitted in New York escape New York discipline by acting in another state?

A: No. The opinion applied DR 1-105(A): a New York-admitted lawyer remains subject to New York's disciplinary authority wherever the conduct occurs.

Q: Which rules governed the dual-admitted lawyer's conduct outside court?

A: The opinion applied DR 1-105(B): the rules of the jurisdiction where the lawyer principally practices, unless the conduct's predominant effect is in another jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, in which case that jurisdiction's rules apply.

Q: How did the committee decide Illinois rules applied here?

A: The opinion concluded the inquirer practiced principally in Illinois and the conduct's predominant effect was in Illinois, so Illinois rules governed even though the lawyer was also admitted in New York.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 1-105 of New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility (disciplinary authority and choice of law), added in 1999. The Model Rule analogue is Rule 8.5 (disciplinary authority and choice of law for multijurisdictional practice). New York replaced this Code with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the DR number cited here is historical.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.5 (disciplinary authority; choice of law)
• NY DR 1-105

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. City 1999-7: New York rules applied where the lawyer's office and all services were in New York

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 762: Supervising foreign-licensed lawyers
• NY State Bar Op. 745: Referral fees after a conflict disqualification
• RI EAP Op. 2007-10: Disclosure to Out-of-State Regulator by RI/NY-Admitted Lawyer Is Governed by New York's Rules Under Rule 8.5

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-750/