Another Opinion Related to Residency Requirements

If you are keeping up with developments in the bona fide office rules or residency requirements of state bars that govern the practice of law, you might want to read through this recent opinion: In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF CARLTON, No. 10-mc-160 U.S. District Court D. Maryland (April 26, 2010).  I’ve only got the Westlaw citation for it: 2010 WL 1707722 (D.Md.).  I’ll link to it if it ever makes its way online into the zone of free research. 

The attorney in this case worked from home in Massachusetts for a law firm based in the District of Columbia. She is licensed in the District of Columbia, but not in Massachusetts. The opinion held that her law practice is in D.C. even though she lives in MA and that she was not in violation of a Maryland local rule regarding “principal law office” location.  The opinion discusses the attorney’s use of technology to provide legal services online and collaborate with her firm in D.C. 

This is another example of where elawyering is called into question because of outdated rules and regulations that do not take into consideration the methods now available to attorneys to ethically and responsibility provide services online.  At least the outcome is a positive one.  It’s worth a read if you keeping up with new development on this topic.

Leave a comment:


Required field