Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP)

Multijurisdictional practice (MJP) rules govern when lawyers licensed in one jurisdiction may provide legal services in another without full local bar admission. The term is used broadly; on BarReciprocity.com, state MJP pages focus primarily on each jurisdiction’s adoption of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 and 8.5, or similar provisions.

Related admission paths tracked separately on this site include pro hac vice, house counsel, and admission on motion. Click a state on the maps below for jurisdiction-specific MJP pages (refreshed August 2026).

The ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice discusses MJP generally. BarReciprocity.com does not currently cover foreign legal consultants or temporary practice by foreign lawyers.

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

ABA Model Rule 5.5 exempts certain conduct from unauthorized-practice restrictions. The policy is that such practices do not create an unreasonable risk to clients, the public, or the courts.

The model rule allows temporary practice that includes pro hac vice admission, work authorized (or reasonably expected to be authorized) by a temporary rule, non-court ADR related to the lawyer’s home practice, and services reasonably arising out of practice where the lawyer is admitted.

The model rule also allows practice as house counsel for an employer when the lawyer is authorized where principally licensed and court admission is not required. Many states require separate house-counsel registration beyond the RPC safe harbor.

The map below identifies states that have adopted all or part of Rule 5.5 or provide a similar rule:

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

ABA Model Rule 8.5 addresses which jurisdiction’s conduct rules apply when a lawyer practices in more than one state. Lawyers are generally subject to the rules of the jurisdiction where they are admitted, and also to the rules of any jurisdiction where they provide legal services.

For conduct in connection with a matter before a tribunal, the rules of the tribunal’s jurisdiction usually apply unless the tribunal’s rules provide otherwise. For other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred apply; if the predominant effect is elsewhere, that jurisdiction’s rules may govern instead.

The map below identifies states that have adopted all or part of Rule 8.5 or a similar choice-of-law rule: