May In-House Counsel Provide Legal Services Here If They Aren't Licensed in Georgia?
Before taking that in-house position in Georgia, an out-of-state lawyer should know the answer to this question.
December 01, 2017 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
Shutterstock Jonathan Hawkins (John Disney/ ALM)
Fairly regularly, lawyers move to Georgia to begin new jobs as in-house counsel. Certain questions naturally will arise. To accept an in-house position and provide legal services in Georgia, does a lawyer have to become licensed here? What are the consequences, if any, of the in-house lawyer not having a Georgia license? What if the lawyer does not have an active license anywhere?
Before taking that in-house position in Georgia, an out-of-state lawyer should know the answers to those questions. Some possible consequences of providing legal services as an unlicensed in-house lawyer include criminal sanction for unauthorized practice of law, possible loss of the ability of the client to assert the attorney-client privilege, or reprimand, suspension or disbarment of the attorney.
Under certain circumstances, Georgia allows in-house counsel to perform legal services for their employers, even if they are not licensed in the state. The rationale for this license exception is that a lawyer's ability to represent her organizational client generally serves the interests of the employer and does not create an unreasonable risk to the client because it is well situated to assess the lawyer's qualifications and the quality of the lawyer's work.
Specifically, Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d) allows an in-house lawyer not admitted to practice law in Georgia to provide legal services for her employer if the following conditions are met:
- The lawyer must be authorized to practice law in a state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia;
- The lawyer must not be disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction;
- The legal services are being provided to the lawyer's employer or its organizational affiliates; and
- The legal services being provided are not services for which a particular forum requires pro hac vice admission.
To fall under the Rule 5.5(d) license exception, in-house counsel must be authorized to practice in at least one jurisdiction. That means they cannot take inactive status, and they must pay their bar dues and complete their annual CLE requirements. Any lapse, unintentional or not, will open the lawyer up to the unauthorized practice of law.
An in-house counsel in Pennsylvania learned this the hard way. In that case, the in-house lawyer failed to maintain her annual CLE requirements and failed to pay her annual bar dues. The Pennsylvania bar initially placed her on inactive status for failing to meet the annual CLE requirements and later changed her status from inactive to administratively suspended. While on inactive status and administrative suspension, the in-house attorney was a “formerly admitted attorney” and was no longer authorized to practice law. Thus, during that time period, she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. She was ultimately suspended from the practice of law for six months.
While Rule 5.5(d) allows an unadmitted in-house lawyer to provide legal services to its employer in Georgia, it explicitly does not allow the lawyer to provide personal legal services to the employer's officers or employees. Even without this express prohibition, conflicts would often prevent such representation anyway.
On occasion, an in-house counsel may be tasked with representing his corporate employer in litigation or at a deposition. If not actively licensed in Georgia, then the attorney cannot represent the client unless and until securing pro hac vice admission in the particular forum.
Some jurisdictions require an out-of-state licensed in-house lawyer to register with their employer's state bar association, but Georgia currently has no such rule. That said, in-house lawyers who provide legal services for employers here are still subject to the disciplinary authority of the State Bar of Georgia, so they should be familiar with the ethics rules and opinions here. See Ga. R. Prof'l Conduct 8.5(a).
Key Takeaways
If you are an out-of-state lawyer taking an in-house position with a company here in Georgia, remember to:
- Maintain an active license somewhere;
- Only provide legal services to your employer client;
- Know and comply with the Georgia ethics rules.
Jonathan E. Hawkins is a partner in the Atlanta firm of Krevolin & Horst. He represents clients in numerous business sectors in high-stakes complex commercial litigation and serves as outside general, business and ethics counsel to lawyers and law firms.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
Supreme Court of Georgia Accepts Lawyer's Voluntary Surrender of License
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250