We are disappointed in Opinion 60, issued by the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (CUPL) on Dec. 19, 2022, which applies New Jersey’s RPC 5.5 with regard to interpreting that rule. The opinion raises several issues, including the interplay between CUPL and the courts, but our focus here is on the underlying rule and its flaws, and the failure of the opinion to address one of the safe harbors.

In brief, Opinion 60 relied on RPC 5.5 to take issue with Johnson v. McClellan, 486 N.J. Super, 562 (App. Div.), certif. den., 249 N.J. 76 (2021), which held that a non-New Jersey-licensed lawyer and law professor in Pennsylvania was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in New Jersey where he drafted documents for plaintiffs, communicated with retaining experts, worked with and gave directions to New Jersey-admitted lawyers handling the case, and opined on New Jersey law and trial practice to plaintiff and the other attorneys. The court found that under the occasional practice provision of RPC 5.5(b)(3)(iv), there was no unauthorized practice of law.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]