AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONSection of Real Property,
Probate and Trust Law
750 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60611
FAX: (312) 988-5262
E-mail:
Mr. Wayne J. Positan
ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice
c/o Mr. John Holtaway
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
541 Fairbanks Court, 14th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Re:Endorsement of the Report of the ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice by the ABA Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law
Dear Mr. Positan:
The American Bar Association’s Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section strongly endorses the Report issued on May 17, 2002 (the “Report”) by the ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice (the “Commission”). We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the members of the Commission, its staff and all who participated in the careful consideration of the issues related to multijurisdictional practice that lawyers regularly face in their representation of clients. We are especially grateful to you, Wayne, for taking the time to meet with us at the Mid-Year Meeting and for understanding our concerns.
The Commission’s Report, and its specific recommendations, recognize the reality that clients frequently are disinclined to engage “local” counsel when their business takes them outside the state in which their attorneys are licensed. This reluctance occurs for a variety of reasons that may include the client’s recognition of the lawyer as an expert in his or her area of practice, the client’s historical relationship with the lawyer (which may not be geographically based), the client’s desire to control costs and the availability of other non-lawyer resources to assist with local issues. Clients generally demand to be represented by an individual lawyer or a single firm of their choice in a cost-effective and timely manner, and prefer to avoid the burden and complexity of dealing with a disparate group of lawyers whose only reason for selection was their location in a jurisdiction where a formal court proceeding may ripen, where a transaction may be based or where the client is located.
In past submissions to the Commission, our Section has detailed the multijurisdictional nature of the practices of our members, which is driven by the reality of how business is conducted in the United States today and client demand for and approval of such services. We believe the final Report, and the specific recommendations set forth in the Report, serve the interests of the public, the profession, practicing attorneys and their clients by recognizing the types of cross-border services that real property, probate and estate planning attorneys are regularly asked to provide to their clients, while requiring that each lawyer who temporarily provides legal service in another jurisdiction act competently, limit such services to those that are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted and adhere to the ethical requirements of the non-licensing jurisdiction.
We think it is noteworthy to add that our Section’s membership, numbering close to 30,000, is dominated by solo practitioners and lawyers practicing in small firm settings, and that the issues of multijurisdictional practice addressed by the Report are issues that the majority of our members, regardless of their firms' size, have struggled with for years. Our members are regularly asked by their clients, who may be individuals, small businesses or large multi-state or multi-national enterprises, to assist such clients beyond the borders of the lawyer’s state of licensure, and the degree to which our members are asked to engage in multijurisdictional representation is not linked to the size or breadth of their practices.
The Commission’s recommendations legitimize the multijurisdictional practice that our clients expect, desire and demand from us. They safeguard a core principle of our profession that clients are entitled to competent representation by counsel of their choice. They recognize the new era of economic and professional globalization that we now practice in, while preserving the requirement of competence inherent in Model Rule 1.1 and maintaining the principle of state judicial regulation of the practice of law. Our Section commends the Report and the specific recommendations set forth in the Report to the ABA House of Delegates for adoption and have instructed our Section delegates to vote in favor of adopting the Report and recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
David K.Y. Tang
Chair, Section of Real Property Probate and Trust Law