If a lawyer admitted only in another state practices immigration law from a New York office, what must her letterhead and business cards say?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer is licensed in Texas, not New York, and works at a New York firm that practices only immigration law. She asked two things: may she practice immigration law in New York, and if so, what must her letterhead and business cards disclose.

On the first question, the committee declines to opine. Whether an out-of-state lawyer may practice immigration law in New York turns on the unauthorized-practice statutes (Judiciary Law sections 476-a, 478, 484) and on federal provisions allowing any state's bar member in good standing to appear before the immigration courts. Those are questions of law outside the committee's jurisdiction, following N.Y. State 835 (2009). The committee also notes that whether the New York Rules govern her conduct at all is itself a legal question, though it observes the Rules more than likely will apply to a lawyer offering legal services in New York.

On the second question, assuming she may practice and the Rules apply, the committee holds that simply listing "Admitted in Texas" is not enough. To satisfy Rules 7.5(a) and 7.5(d), she must note on the firm letterhead where her name appears, and on her business cards, both that she is admitted only in Texas and that her New York practice is limited solely to immigration matters. The committee adds that it would be prudent, though not required, to state that she is "not licensed in New York State." It draws support from New Jersey and Pennsylvania opinions reaching the same result, and from ABA Informal Op. 777 (1965).

On email, the committee holds that jurisdictional and subject-matter limits need not appear in a signature block, but if the email is an "advertisement" under Rule 1.0(a) it must comply with Rule 7.1, and if it is also a "solicitation" under Rule 7.3(b) it must comply with Rule 7.3. In any communication, the lawyer must not state or imply that she is admitted in New York, given Rule 8.4(c).

In practice

Under the New York rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, an out-of-state lawyer who may practice immigration law in New York satisfies the letterhead and business-card disclosure rules only by stating both her actual jurisdiction of admission and the immigration-only limit on her New York practice; "Admitted in Texas" alone is insufficient because it does not make clear the jurisdictional limitation. The committee characterizes adding "not licensed in New York State" as prudent, not as a rule requirement. It expressly does not decide whether she may practice in New York or whether the Rules apply to her, both being legal questions.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer admitted only in another state run an immigration practice from a New York office?

A: The opinion does not decide this. Whether an out-of-state lawyer may practice immigration law in New York is a question of law (under the Judiciary Law and federal immigration-court provisions) that the committee says is beyond its jurisdiction.

Q: Is "Admitted in Texas" enough on the letterhead?

A: No. The opinion concludes that listing only the state of admission does not "make clear the jurisdictional limitations" required by Rule 7.5(d); the lawyer must also state that her New York practice is limited to immigration matters.

Q: Does the disclosure have to appear in an email signature block?

A: Not necessarily. The opinion holds the limits need not appear in a signature block, but if the email is an advertisement it must comply with Rule 7.1, and if it is a solicitation it must also comply with Rule 7.3.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.1 (no false, deceptive, or misleading communications), Rule 7.5(a) and 7.5(d) (professional cards, letterhead, and the duty to make clear jurisdictional limitations where a firm has lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions), Rule 7.3 (solicitation), and Rule 8.4(c) (no dishonesty or misrepresentation). It treats the threshold questions of unauthorized practice and disciplinary jurisdiction as matters of law outside the committee's role, governed by Judiciary Law sections 90(2), 476-a, 478, and 484 and federal immigration-court rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• New York Rule 7.5(a), (d) (letterhead and jurisdictional-limitation disclosure); Model Rule 7.5
• New York Rule 7.1(a) (false, deceptive, or misleading advertising); Model Rule 7.1
• New York Rule 7.3 (solicitation); Model Rule 7.3
• New York Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation); Model Rule 8.4(c)

Statutes:

• Judiciary Law sections 90(2), 476-a, 478, 484 (unauthorized practice and court authority over attorneys)
• 8 C.F.R. sections 1001.1(f), 1292.1(a)(1) (practice before federal immigration courts)

Cases:

• In re Wong, 275 A.D.2d 1, 710 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1st Dep't 2000), inherent authority to discipline attorneys

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 835 (2009): whether an out-of-state lawyer may practice in New York is a legal question
• ABA Informal Op. 777 (1965): "Admitted to Practice in New York" alone is improper
• New Jersey UPL/Advertising Op. 44 (2008); Pennsylvania Ethics Op. 2005-14 (2005)

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 872: Attorney nicknames and name translations
• NY State Bar Op. 869: Permissible law firm names
• NY State Bar Op. 864: Fee sharing with an out-of-state lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-863/