Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP)

The Multijurisdictional Practice Rules (MJP), like the term “reciprocity,” refer to a variety of admission procedures that affect attorneys licensed in out-of-state jurisdictions. While addressing the fog surrounding MJP, the New Mexico Board described MJP as:

A patchwork of differences in initial admission, reciprocity, federal practice, transactional practices, along with the ability to electronically be in touch with all geographical areas of the nation as well as the entire globe that have contributed to bring New Mexico and the national bar to face the ever-more pressing need to seek solutions for multijurisdictional practice (MJP). Nationwide there currently exists vague state rules creating uncertainty for attorney and their clients.

The MJP rules remain ambiguous, and it is unclear what types of rules the term encompasses. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) generally refers to the following categories of rules under the umbrella term of MJP:

  • Foreign Legal Consultants (not currently included on BarReciprocity.com)
  • Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers (not currently included on BarReciprocity.com)

For the purposes of BarReciprocity.com, any reference to MJP is considered the adoption and implementation of ABA Model Rules 5.5 or 8.5 or a similar rule. The other categories of admission affecting out-of-state attorneys, that may be referred to as MJP by other entities, have been separated within this database to correspond with the distinctions typically made by the jurisdictions.

ABA Model Rule 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; MJP Practice of Law)

ABA Model Rule 5.5, and the applicable comments, exempt certain practices from the unauthorized practice of law. The policy behind the model rules is that such practices do not create an unreasonable risk to the interests of the attorney’s clients, the public, or the courts.

The model rule allows temporary practice that includes Pro Hac Vice admission, attorneys that are authorized to practice under a temporary rule or reasonably expect to be authorized under a temporary rule, mediation and arbitration proceedings that are not court-annexed, and practice that reasonably arises out of the attorney’s practice in his or her admitted jurisdiction.

The model rules also allow practice as House Counsel. The policy behind the inclusion of house counsel attorneys is that the attorney’s ability to represent the employer outside the jurisdiction where the attorney is licensed generally serves the interests of the employer and does not create an unreasonable risk to the client and others, because the employer is well situated to access the attorney’s qualifications and the quality of the attorney’s work.

The map below identifies states that have adopted all or part of Rule 5.5 or the jurisdiction provides a similar rule that allows out-of-state attorneys to practice within that state:

States adopting MJP Rule 5.5 or a Similar Rule
States that have not adopted MJP Rule 5.5

ABA Model Rule 8.5 (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law)

ABA Model Rule 8.5, and the applicable comments, recognize that attorneys practicing in more than one jurisdiction will likely be subject to conflicting admission rules, court rules, and/or rules of professional conduct. Rule 8.5 attempts to minimize such conflicts and the uncertainty regarding which rules are applicable by establishing the set of rules governing the attorney’s conduct.

The model rule generally states that attorneys are subject to their jurisdiction’s rules regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. Out-of-state attorneys are subject to the jurisdiction’s rules if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in that jurisdiction. Attorneys may be subject to more than one disciplinary authority.

The choice of law provision applies the rules of where the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise. For any other conduct, the rules are those of the jurisdiction where the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or if the predominant effect occurred in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction are applied. In addition, an attorney will not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction where the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.

The map below identifies states that have adopted all or part of Rule 8.5 or the jurisdiction provides a similar rule:

States adopting MJP Rule 8.5 or a similar rule
States that do not include MJP Rule 8.5

ABA Model Rule 8.5 (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law)

ABA Model Rule 8.5, and the applicable comments, recognize that attorneys practicing in more than one jurisdiction will likely be subject to conflicting admission rules, court rules, or rules of professional conduct. Rule 8.5 attempts to minimize such conflicts and uncertainty by establishing the set of rules governing the attorney’s conduct.

The model rules generally state that attorneys are subject to their jurisdiction’s rules regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. Out-of-state attorneys are subject to the jurisdiction’s rules if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in that jurisdiction. Attorneys may be subject to more than one disciplinary authority.

The choice of law provision applies the rules of where the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise. For any other conduct, the rules are those of the jurisdiction where the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or if the predominant effect occurred in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction are applied. In addition, an attorney will not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction where the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.

The map below identifies states that have adopted all or part of Rule 8.5 or the jurisdiction provides a similar rule: