It's Time to Repeal Judiciary Law §470
Given what we have learned about staying connected through technology, the obsolescence of §470 is more obvious than ever. Lawyers are meeting with clients and staff, conducting research and collaborating on complex documents with co-workers—all from their home offices.
May 19, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
As millions of people around the world observe stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of COVID-19, many attorneys have found it relatively easy to stay connected with professional colleagues through phone calls, emails, texts, videoconferencing and cloud computing technology.
At the same time, an anachronistic century-old statute, New York Judiciary Law section 470, requires attorneys based outside the state but licensed to practice within its boundaries to have a physical "bricks-and-mortar" office here.
Given what we have learned about staying connected through technology, the obsolescence of §470 is more obvious than ever. Lawyers are meeting with clients and staff, conducting research and collaborating on complex documents with co-workers—all from their home offices. In New York State, they are even completing notarization of documents and making court appearances on "essential" matters via videoconference.
Legislation introduced this month in the state Assembly would repeal §470. The bill, A.10425, is sponsored by Assemblyman David Weprin and matches legislation introduced last year by State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman. Nearly 25% of New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) members reside or practice outside the state and we strongly support this measure.
When §470 was enacted in 1909, the law made sense. There was concern that without a physical office in the state, papers could not easily be served on out-of-state lawyers who were nonetheless duly admitted to practice in New York. Technology has rendered these concerns obsolete, and so has subsequent law. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §2103 provides a mechanism for service outside New York State.
What's more, a lawyer admitted in New York who resides in the state is not required to have a bricks-and-mortar office. He or she is deemed perfectly able to provide services to clients without such an office. But a lawyer who lives just across the state line in Connecticut—or New Jersey, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or Pennsylvania—is deemed to be unable to do the same.
New York law is the global gold standard, and admission to practice in New York is highly valued. Each year, the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department, based in Albany, admits lawyers from across the United States and around the world. These lawyers pass the New York bar examination at a fee of $250 or $750 if the applicant studies law in a foreign country, pay a biennial registration fee of $375, and comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements.
Yet every year, lawyers from other states and countries admitted in New York are stymied from utilizing their New York law license by section 470, and as a result resign from the New York bar, depriving the state of much-needed revenue.
In a digital era where attorneys across the street and around the world are just a click away on their computer or smart phone, an antiquated rule from over a century ago requiring a physical office in the state no longer serves any purpose.
Henry M. Greenberg is president of the New York State Bar Association.
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
© 2025 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 AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Parties’ Reservation of Rights Defeats Attempt to Enforce Settlement in Principle
- 2ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 3States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 4Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 5Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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