Lawyer Licensed in DC, Telecommuting from Mass. Can Keep Md. Federal Court Bar Membership
A lawyer can keep her membership with the bar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in spite of a local rule that would seemingly disqualify her because she’s been telecommuting from Massachusetts since August 2007 but isn’t licensed in that state.
When Cedar P. Carlton, who is licensed in the District of Columbia, applied to renew her membership to the bar in 2008, Judge Peter J. Messitte of the disciplinary and admissions committee noticed that Carlton, by way of her telecommuting was in violation of Local Rule 701.1(a) (PDF), which stated that in order to qualify, Carlton “must be, and continuously remain, a member in good standing of the highest court in any state (or the District of Columbia) in which the attorney maintains his or her principal law office, or the Court of Appeals of Maryland,” according to the opinion (PDF).
Because Carlton wasn’t a member of the Maryland bar and primarily worked in Massachusetts, she would have to be a member in good standing of the that state’s bar—her Washington, D.C., bar membership would not be applicable. Messitte asked Carlton to explain how her office in D.C. was her principal office. And she successfully persuaded the court that it was.
“In recent years, the concept of a ‘principal law office’ has evolved somewhat as a result of significant advances in technology which provide an attorney with the flexibility to carry out a variety of activities at different locations and under varying circumstances. … Under the circumstances described by Ms. Carlton, there can be no question that for purposes of malpractice insurance coverage, tax obligations and client security trust fund obligations, her office is the office of her employer,” the opinion stated.
She uses the address of her D.C. firm—Webster, Fredrickson, Henrichsen, Correia & Puth—in her correspondence and pleadings; when she meets with clients, she does so in Washington, D.C., and her client files and other business records are located in Washington, D.C., the opinion says.
“This is another example of where eLawyering is called into question because of outdated rules and regulations that do not take into consideration the methods now available to attorneys to ethically and responsibility provide services online,” Stephanie Kimbro writes at Virtual Law Practice. “At least the outcome is a positive one.” Kimbro is based in Wilmington, N.C. and operates a Web-based virtual law office.
A recent joint opinion by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and the Committee on Attorney Advertising ruled that a lawyer having anything short of a permanent bona fide office in New Jersey is in violation of ethics rules. Kimbro and Brian Tannebaum, who practices in Miami, engaged in an ABA Journal-hosted Twitter debate on the topic of virtual law offices last month. Click here to read the transcript of that debate.
