Can a lawyer licensed in another state work remotely from Oregon (or an Oregon lawyer from another state) without unauthorized practice?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses two mirror-image lawyers. Lawyer A is licensed in another state, moves to Oregon, and keeps practicing only that other state's law remotely through email, phone, and video, without doing or soliciting Oregon work or holding out as admitted in Oregon. Lawyer B is the reverse: licensed only in Oregon, moves to the other state, and keeps practicing only Oregon law from there.

For Question 1, the opinion concludes "No, qualified": Lawyer A is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Oregon. Oregon RPC 5.5(a) and (b) bar practicing in a jurisdiction in violation of its regulation and bar an unadmitted lawyer from establishing a systematic and continuous presence for the practice of law or holding out as admitted. Because Oregon had not addressed this scenario, the opinion adopts the reasoning of ABA Formal Opinion 495 (2020), on which Oregon's rule is patterned: a lawyer practicing the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, for clients of that jurisdiction, while physically located where the lawyer is not licensed, is practicing in the licensed jurisdiction (just from a different physical location) and is "invisible as a lawyer" to the local jurisdiction. The opinion concludes that as long as Lawyer A practices exclusively the law of jurisdictions where Lawyer A is authorized, for non-Oregon residents, and does not hold out as available to handle Oregon matters, Lawyer A has not engaged in unauthorized practice in Oregon. It notes the same conclusion applies to less-than-permanent presence, such as practicing from an Oregon vacation home, and does not distinguish private practitioners from in-house counsel.

For Question 2, the opinion concludes "see discussion": whether Lawyer B is engaged in unauthorized practice in the other state is determined by the law of that other state, not Oregon, because the analysis depends on the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is physically located. The opinion notes the Oregon Supreme Court retains disciplinary authority over Oregon-licensed lawyers wherever their conduct occurs.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer licensed elsewhere may live in Oregon and work remotely on the law of their licensing state without committing unauthorized practice in Oregon, so long as they do not represent themselves as Oregon practitioners through websites, letterhead, business cards, or advertising, and confine their work to matters they are authorized to handle. The opinion frames the key line as "holding out": indicia such as website, letterhead, and advertising determine whether a lawyer is presenting as practicing in the local jurisdiction.

The opinion makes the converse question (an Oregon lawyer physically in another state) turn on the other state's law, and reminds Oregon-licensed lawyers they remain subject to Oregon discipline regardless of location.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer licensed only in another state live in Oregon and work remotely?

A: Yes, qualified. The opinion concludes the lawyer is not engaged in unauthorized practice in Oregon if they practice only the law of jurisdictions where they are authorized, for non-Oregon clients, and do not hold out as available to handle Oregon matters.

Q: What does "holding out" mean in this context?

A: The opinion, following ABA Op. 495, concludes a lawyer may not state or imply they are licensed in the local jurisdiction; website, letterhead, business cards, and advertising are indicia of whether the lawyer is holding out as practicing locally.

Q: Does this apply to a vacation home or in-house counsel?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes the same result applies to a less-than-permanent presence, such as practicing the other state's law from an Oregon vacation home, and does not distinguish between private-practice and in-house lawyers.

Q: Can an Oregon lawyer work remotely from another state?

A: It depends on that state's law. The opinion concludes whether an Oregon lawyer commits unauthorized practice in the other state is governed by the other state's law, not Oregon's, though Oregon retains disciplinary authority over its lawyers wherever they are.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 5.5(a) and (b) (unauthorized practice and systematic presence), with reference to RPC 5.5(c) (temporary practice) and RPC 8.5 (disciplinary authority and choice of law). These track Model Rule 5.5. The analysis adopts ABA Formal Opinion 495 (2020) and notes related authority including ABA Formal Opinion 498 (virtual practice) and ORS 9.160.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice; multijurisdictional practice)
• Oregon RPC 8.5 / Model Rule 8.5 (disciplinary authority; choice of law)

Statutes:

• ORS 9.160(1) (prohibiting unauthorized practice of law in Oregon); ORS 9.990(1) (penalties)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 495 (2020): lawyers working remotely
• ABA Formal Op. 498 (2021): virtual practice
• N.J. Advisory Comm. on Prof. Ethics Op. 742 (2021); Utah Ethics Op. 19-02 (2019)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 495: Lawyers Working Remotely
• ABA Formal Op. 498: Virtual Practice
• OSB Ethics Op. 2024-203: Cultural Awareness and Language Access

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2022-200.pdf