What’s trending
The rapid evolution of technology over 2 years of COVID not only allows for a remote practice, but in many regards encourages it. So much so that some firms are now hiring attorneys who will work primarily – if not exclusively – remotely.
The focus of regulators’ concerns is shifting less on where
Two recent developments in states accounting for a hefty percentage of U.S. lawyers spotlight the profession’s move toward technology-based practice models that are untethered from physical offices.
In New York, the state senate last month unanimously passed a bill that would remove the requirement — dating to 1909 — that New York-licensed lawyers residing outside
Legal malpractice plaintiffs fended off motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in two separate cases, in two different jurisdictions, under opinions that happened to be filed on the same day last week. The opinions, from a New Jersey state appeals court and a North Carolina federal district court, stand as a warning
Are you a snow bird? Do you or one of your partners have a second home in Florida? Many do, and it’s long been a source of anxiety that working remotely from that home might be a problem. After all, many of those doing client work while in the Sunshine State are not licensed to
Whether to flee from areas experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, or simply to take advantage of the opportunity to work far away from the office, lawyers may sometimes wish to work remotely from a jurisdiction other than the one where they are licensed. Though you may dream of “practicing” from a laptop in the distant California mountains,
Defense counsel did not act beyond the scope of their pro hac vice admission by contacting some of their client’s former employees and offering to represent them at their depositions, said a California district court last week, turning back plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify the Ohio lawyers. In its opinion the court analyzed both pro hac
A few weeks ago, we wrote about the Ohio bar applicant with mega-school debt, and the recommendation of the state character and fitness board that she not be permitted to take the bar exam until 2024 based in part on her “neglect of financial responsibilities.”
Less than six weeks after hearing oral argument, a divided
An Ohio law school grad might not be allowed to sit for this year’s bar exam partly because she and her husband have a combined educational debt of almost $900,000 that they are unlikely ever to pay off.
The state’s Board on Character and Fitness recommended that the applicant not be allowed to take the