Where Do You Practice Law?

Stuart Levine reports in his Maryland Business Law Developments blog on a noteworthy new decision by the U.S. District Court for Maryland Court  In the Matter of the Application of Cedar P. Carlton for Renewal of Membership in the Bar that involves telecommuting in the practice of law.  The case involved the application of Local Rule 701.1(a):

in order for an attorney to be qualified for admission to the bar of this district, the attorney must be, and continuously remain, a member in good standing of the highest court of 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.

Carlton lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but was employed by a firm in the District of Columbia.  Carlton's practice was conducted exclusively by remote connection to the firm's computer system in the District of Columbia.  She did not engage in the practice of law in Massachusetts and met with clients exclusively in her firm's office in DC.  Similarly, telephone communication with Carlton was handled through the DC office.

In reaching its decision, the Court analyzed six (6) non-exclusive factors and held that Carlton satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 701.1(a).  Here is an excerpt from the opinion that appears in Stuart's blog:

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. The term does not necessarily mean continuous physical presence but, at a minimum, it requires some physical presence sufficient to assure accountability of the attorney to clients and the court. 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. In addition, the address utilized in pleadings, correspondence with clients, letterhead and other matters is also the address of her employer, which maintains a substantial physical presence in Washington, D.C. When meetings with clients are required, Ms. Carlton does meet with them in Washington, D.C. Her client files, accounting records and other business records, library and communication facilities such as telephone and fax service are all located in Washington, D.C. although, by virtue of advances in technology, she is able to access them remotely from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For further discussion of the case, see Stuart's blog.