Questions on Office for Nonresident Lawyers Certified

, New York Law Journal


The Second Circuit has certified a question asking the state's highest court to wrestle with Judiciary Law §470, which requires nonresident attorneys to maintain an "office for the transaction of law business" as the price of practicing here.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

Originally appeared in print as Issue of Nonresident Lawyer Offices Heads to N.Y. High Court

What's being said

  • MC

    UPS stores and drop boxes do not meet the statutory definition of an "office for the transaction of law business" and that was the Second Circuit‘s problem with the definition. It presumes much more than just an address for the service of process.

  • Connecticut has it too. Most proscriptions on out of state attorneys are purely protectionist and it is admirable to see her take it on. Besides, with e-filing and virtual offices available everywhere, the myth of need for serving papers etc is risible.

  • AYB

    This rule and others in the United States are simply protectionist and should be done away with. They serve no purpose in our information age.

  • TW

    I was not even aware we had this rule. I recall a lot of NY attorneys commenting on how annoying and protectionist it was when NJ had a "bona fide office" rule a few years back.

  • Given the use of UPS stores and other drop boxes, where you could reach and serve an out of state attorney, what‘s the big deal? If she can‘t afford 30 to 50 bucks a month she should be selling animal crackers in Journal Square, not practicing law.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202650255548

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.