Bob Ambrogi: State Bar Admission is Irrelevant
24 Hours
Robert J. Ambrogi
We live in an age that knows few bounds. Where once we were limited by geography, we now can communicate instantly with anyone anywhere in the world. Where once we were limited by knowledge, we now have the world's libraries accessible to us with just a few keystrokes. Where once we were limited by opportunity, we now command the power of vast digital resources, without regard to our status or wealth.
Yet still we practice law in a profession hobbled by bounds. We cannot represent a neighbor down the street, if the street happens to cross a state line. We cannot take on an out-of-state client who reaches out to us with a problem, even if we may be among the best-equipped to address the problem. We must even be circumspect about engaging in social media, for fear of crossing lines drawn ages ago, when our perspectives were much narrower.
It no longer makes sense to regulate the practice of law based solely on a lawyer's geographic location. In fact, not only does geography not make sense as a basis for regulation, but it is irrelevant. Here is why:
• More and more, law is federal. The Constitution and federal law provide the legal framework for broad swaths of our day-to-day lives, from business to communications, from employment to the environment.
• More and more, law is standardized. Even where the law is left to the states, laws on similar topics tend to mirror each other. Often, state laws are based on uniform drafts written by national bodies.
• More and more, lawyers are specialists. One of the arcane rules governing lawyers is that they are not supposed to call themselves specialists or experts. But most lawyers are, whether in a single field of practice or several.
• Know-how trumps location any day. The lawyer who is an expert in a given field but lives in a different state is better prepared to represent a client in that field than is the non-expert who happens to live in the same state.
• State-specific savvy is a myth. The rationale for state bar admission is that lawyers know their state's laws. The fact is, they know only the laws they need to know and conduct research to figure out the rest. When a lawyer is confronted with a legal question, it makes little difference in solving it whether the answer is to be found in the law of the lawyer's home state, another state or in federal statutes or cases.
• Lawyers are not stupid. Some lawyers may be darned fools, but few made it through law school without some brains in their heads. What matters is not the geographic location of the client's problem, but the lawyer's ability to analyze and address the problem.
In a world in which we are connected globally, barely a day goes by without many lawyers receiving inquiries from potential clients they are forced to turn away. Regrettably, in many of these cases, the lawyer may be well qualified to represent the client and possibly better qualified than the lawyer the client ultimately retains – if the client is able to find a lawyer at all.
Geographic restrictions serve neither the public nor the profession. They are irrelevant to a lawyer's qualifications to represent a client. Lawyers should no longer be licensed by state. Instead, the profession should adopt a single national license, one that establishes that a lawyer has the proper education, training and knowledge to engage in the general practice of law. Perhaps there should also be additional certifications by practice areas.
State bar admission is an antiquated concept that has no relevance in a digital world. It is time to retire the concept, along with the manual typewriter, dusty library stacks and the fax machine.
Robert J. Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer, writer and media consultant. He writes the blogs LawSites and Media Law, co-writes Legal Blog Watch and co-hosts the legal affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer.
Also see this Legal Rebels profile: Erica Moeser: A Bar for All
Share this post
Comments
Report Abuse
Posted by sheldon c. toplitt - 4 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 57 minutes ago
Provocative blog, and I agree with many of the points made. One area the post overlooks is the regulatory function of admission to a state bar. In the medical negligence arena, the handful of doctors involved in multiple malpractice suits can relocate to another jurisdiction to inflict their dubious skills on an unsuspecting public and their track record is sometimes slow to follow. Likewise, a “national board of bar overseers” might take more time to catch up with a “bad apple” attorney than would a state bar’s disciplinary arm.
Posted by William Wilson - 4 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 56 minutes ago
Bob’s column is spot-on. The reality is that any lawyer should be able to research the peculiarities of another state’s laws. I practice just a few miles from a state line, yet we receive regular inquiries dealing with matters across that line.
I fear this idea will not come to fruition, however. States such as Florida or California have bars that probably want to limit the number of people practicing in them. Otherwise, we’d all be practicing in Key West.
Posted by Chris Ryan - 4 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes ago
I agree with Bob but share the same thoughts as William Wilson. Some states work very hard to keep lawyers out. One such state right here in New England is Rhode Island. It’s like a closed shop and they don’t want any foreigners to grab a piece of their pie. Why can’t we at least have reciprocity similar to other professions?
Posted by Ford - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago
I haven’t given this a lot of thought, but to me it seems that one of the major barriers to entry with law firms in different states was the tie to the area. Even though I was willing to take the California bar, nothing on my resume or residential history suggested that I knew anyone in the state, and so there was no guarantee I’d stay there if I got an offer. A lot of attorneys I know hate the idea of taking the bar so much that they would only leave their current state for oen with reciprocity. It seems like state focused law firms, with whatever power they have, should want to maintain the status quo if only because it limits the options of some of the associates who might otherwise be attracted to working in other jurisdictions.
Posted by Eric Cooperstein - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 9 hours, 44 minutes ago
The reason we have state-by-state licensure is because the established bar in each state wants to protect its turf. The Rhode Island bar is afraid that if they let in out-of-state lawyers, they would be overwhelmed by Mass. & NY lawyers. With state licensure, they can protect the franchise for their members. Same with Florida & Arizona - they don’t want Northern lawyers moving down and eating their lunches. The other states follow suit because it’s tit for tat - if you won’t let our lawyers in, then we won’t let your lawyers in. It’s going to take far more than well-written articles to break down these barriers.
Posted by Fred Hopengarten - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 51 minutes ago
See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/comm_summ2.html. My position, written in February 2002, may be found there. Ambrogi has it right.
My admissions (by examination in each case) are in D.C. and Maine. Maine, in particular, takes the position that you wear your Maine Bar hat wherever you are. Their rules apply everywhere.
My website, http://www.antennazoning.com, is in WI. My chair, headset and keyboard are in MA. My FAX number is in OH. My videoconferencing connection is in Sweden. My conference call phone number is in NH. I have no idea where my present ISP is located, but my last one was in NY. My practice involves applying the federal law of FCC preemption, and they are in DC. My clients, each given full disclosure about my bar admissions, are FCC licensees located everywhere in the USA.
See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_5_5.html and pay attention to Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Posted by Kevin Stouwie - 4 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
This is a fascinating concept. I am not sure how quickly our profession will embrace the points made in the article. However, the pressure will grow to allow more and more lawyers to practice anywhere technology and demand will lead them.
I am a personal injury trial lawyer, so I can see how there are some limits. Yet, with more and more courts allowing e-filing of pleadings, etc., it is only a matter of time before judges will be equipped for video teleconference hearings. Since less than 5% of all civil disputes go to trial in most practice areas, even the trial lawyer should be able, with the right tools and forward-thinking state bar associations, to practice in all state and federal courts in the U.S. within the next 20 years.
Posted by JENNY LOPRESTI, ESQ. - 4 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 23 minutes ago
IT IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS TO HAVE TO ENDURE ANOTHER LAW EXAM. I AM ADMITTED IN NY AND CONNECTICUT-HAVE TAKEN TWO BAR EXAMS AND WOULD LIKE TO BE ADMITTED IN MAINE WHERE I PURCHASED PROPERTY. THE THOUGHT OF DOING THIS AGAIN IS HORRIFIC AFTER 24 YEARS OF PRACTICE…..