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
© 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 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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