In this article we examine two diverging strands of a single theme: developments in the regulation of remote working. One strand, following the historical pattern of state-by-state regulation of lawyers, demonstrates the problematic nature of state rulemaking. The second strand points towards the possibility of a common-sense national solution. The underlying problem addressed within both strands is whether, and in what circumstances, it constitutes the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) for a lawyer to reside and work remotely while physically located in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted. That the problem exists at all is the necessary result of the state-based regulation of lawyers based on the geography of where they are located. That problem was brought into high relief with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with lawyers working not only outside their offices, but frequently from distant locations in states where they were not admitted. But the problem has not abated as the pandemic has waned; on the contrary, that trend has become a norm for many practitioners as a matter of choice (not always with graceful acceptance by their law firms).