MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2005-07
Whether the leasing of office space in Maryland, by attorneys who are not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction, violates the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, or constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
You have asked for an opinion as to whether the leasing of office space in Maryland, by attorneys who are not licensed to practice in this jurisdiction, violates the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, or constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
You state that the principal office of your firm is in New York, with a satellite office located in the District of Columbia. Your firm focuses primarily on tax law. While the New York office handles some state and local taxation matters, the District of Columbia office handles exclusively federal tax matters. The District of Columbia office has four attorneys; none of whom are licensed to practice law in Maryland.
You contemplate the leasing of office space in Maryland, for use by attorneys from the District of Columbia office. You propose that the firm’s letterhead, business cards and the door to the leased space would prominently display that the attorneys are not licensed to practice law in Maryland. You state that, as is the nature of your work in the District of Columbia, all matters handled out of the leased space would be limited to federal tax law. The firm would not actively seek or solicit clients in Maryland, and Maryland-based clients would rarely be seen there. Finally, you state that none of the attorneys utilizing the leased space would represent clients in Maryland Courts.
First, we ask you to note that although you are not admitted to the Maryland Bar, you would be subject to the disciplinary rules of this state. Rule 8.5(b) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct states:
“A lawyer not admitted by the Court of Appeals to practice in this State is subject to the disciplinary authority of this State for conduct that constitutes a violation of these Rules and that:
- involves the practice of law in this State by that lawyer, or
- involves that lawyer holding himself or herself out as practicing law in this State, or
- involves the practice of law in this State by another lawyer over whom that lawyer has the obligation of supervision or control.
See also 16-701 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, which mirrors this rule.
Rule 7.5(b) states, “A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.” While the precautions that you intend to take with regard to your firm’s letterhead, business cards, and the door to the leased space do not technically run afoul of Rule 7.5(b), the Committee is concerned that a law office conducting business in Maryland, where no one is licensed to practice in Maryland, could put the firm in danger of violating other ethical rules.
Rule 7.1 concerns communications regarding a lawyer’s services. It states in part,
“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it:
- contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;
- is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the rules of professional conduct or other law…”
This Committee has previously opined that “a Maryland resident who seeks legal services at an office located in Maryland will expect that the attorney to whom the client is speaking is licensed in this State. Therefore, the failure to make available on a regular basis a licensed Maryland attorney to handle the legal services required by the client in the State of Maryland would be misleading. Ethics Opinion 94-13
Therefore, the Committee has determined that “a lawyer may not advertise that it has an office in Maryland unless a member of the lawyer’s firm is licensed in Maryland, and is present or available on a continuing or “as needed” basis to supervise the legal services carried on in Maryland. Ethics Opinion 94-13.
The advice of this Committee is limited to the interpretation of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules give little guidance as to what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 5.5 simply states,
“A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
(b) assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.”
Nevertheless, the Committee has previously determined that “the activities of an individual who is not a member of the Maryland Bar in meeting with prospective clients in a Maryland office for the purpose of rendering legal services to those clients may constitute the practice of law in Maryland”. Ethics Opinion 94-13.
The Committee has previously declined to opine regarding what activities specifically constitute the practice of law, because that is a legal question, and ultimately a determination for the Maryland Court of Appeals. See Ethics Opinions 94-13, 99-20, 99-8, and 02-19. In this case, however, we feel compelled to tell you that opening a law office in Maryland, where no one is admitted to the practice of law in Maryland, will result in your firm’s unauthorized practice of law in this jurisdiction.
We are attaching copies of the referenced Ethical Opinions for your review. Thank you for your inquiry. We trust that this opinion has been responsive.