In the 19th century, service of process took some doing in the United States. Pleadings were required to be served in-person and was effected, not through a cadre of bicycle messengers, but more likely by a team on horseback. In order to ease this burden, in 1862, New York enacted a law requiring any attorney wishing to litigate in New York to maintain a physical in-state address, primarily for the purpose of receiving process.
Now, process requirements have changed and service is routinely done electronically, or through one of several cost-effective mail delivery service options. With these changes, many states (including Pennsylvania and New Jersey) have abandoned in-state office requirement laws for nonresident attorneys. However, this is not the case with New York. New York’s current in-state office requirement is codified in New York Judiciary Law Section 470, which mandates that a nonresident attorney maintain an “office for the transaction of law business” within the state of New York. Recently, in Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman, Docket No. 11-4283-cv, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the rationale for New York’s in-state office requirement persists today and, therefore, a constitutional challenge to the statute was denied.
This content has been archived.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
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]
