COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET 94-13
Maryland Lawyer with an out-of-state office operating a satellite office in Maryland through a paralegal or non-Maryland lawyer
Your letter indicates that you are an attorney, licensed to practice law in both Maryland and Virginia. Your practice, which consists of handling plaintiff’s personal injury cases is based in Vienna, Virginia. However, your inquiry concerns your authority to open a “satellite” law office in Maryland, for the convenience of potential Maryland clients, which would be staffed either with (i) your wife, an attorney licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, or (ii) with a paralegal present full-time but without any attorney located in the office to supervise the paralegal. For the most part, you intend that under either scenario, you would continue your practice from your Vienna office and the Maryland satellite office would serve only for the initial intake interviews with Maryland clients. You would visit the Maryland office “semi-regularly” and you would be entirely responsible for the cases.
Two central issues in your inquiry are: (i) whether a lawyer or law firm can hold itself out (by letterhead or through other advertisements, e.g. listings in directories) that the lawyer maintains an office to practice law in Maryland when no lawyer licensed o practice in Maryland is at that office on a regular consistent basis; and (ii) whether the activities described above by a Pennsylvania attorney, who is not licensed in Maryland, constitutes the practice of law in Maryland.
With regard to the first issue, the Committee on Ethics has determined that a lawyer may not advertise that it has an office in Maryland unless a member of the lawyer’s firm is licensed in Maryland and is present or available on a continuing or “as-
Needed” basis to supervise the legal services carried on in Maryland.
The Committee reasoned that Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires that a lawyer “. . . shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyers or the lawyer’s services. . .” The Rule defines false or misleading broadly taking into account many factors. The two determinative factors of the first inquiry are that the communication (i) omits a fact necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading, and (ii) is likely to create an unjustified expectation. We believe that a Maryland resident who seeks legal services at an office located in Maryland will expect that the attorney to whom the client is speaking is licensed in this State. Therefore, the failure to make available on a regular basis a licensed Maryland attorney to handle the legal services required by the client in the State of Maryland would
ETHICS DOCKET 94-13 (2)
be misleading. See Rule 7.1 through 7.5, Rules of Professional Conduct, Opinion 80-55 of New York Bar Association.
With regard to the second issue, the Committee has determined that the activities of an individual who is not a member of the Maryland Bar in meeting with prospective clients in a Maryland office for the purpose of rendering legal services to those clients may constitute the practice of law in Maryland.
As you may be aware, Section 10-206(a) of the Business Occupations and Professionals, Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1993 Cum. Supp.) (‘Code”) provides:
“(a) Admission required – Except as otherwise provided by the
law, before an individual may practice law in the State, the
individual shall:
(i) be admitted to the Bar; and
(ii) meet any requirement that the Court of Appeals may set by rule.”
Section 10-101(h) of the Code provides further guidance as to what constitutes the practice of law. However, these sections are merely in support of, and not a substitution for, the rights of the Maryland Courts to regulate the practice of law. The determination of what constitutes the practice of law in Maryland and the regulation of the practice and its practitioners is vested solely in the judicial branch of the government and is outside the jurisdiction of this Committee. This Committee only provides interpretations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and cannot offer legal advice. See, Kennedy v. Bar Association of Montgomery County, Inc., 316 Md. 646, 561 A.2d 200 (1989).
However, this Committee can offer you some guidance on the applicability of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) to your inquiry. See also, Ethics Docket Nos. 90-28, 89-17 and 89-64. Rules 5.5 and 8.5 are particularly relevant. Rule 5.5 concerns the unauthorized practice of law. This section provides, as follows:
A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
(b) assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Pursuant to Rule 5.5, you shall not “practice law” (as that term is defined by statute) in the State of Maryland without being a member of the Maryland Bar. Therefore, you must determine whether you would violated Maryland law in establishing a law office in Maryland which does not have employed therein a member of the Maryland Bar to meet the clients located in Maryland and to supervise the work of associates and nonlawyer staff members. Please be aware that Paragraph (b) of Rule 5.5 does not preclude you from employing paralegals and delegating responsibilities t them, so long as a Maryland attorney supervises their work and retains responsibility
Rule 8.5 provides that even lawyers not admitted to practice in Maryland are subject to disciplinary rules for violation of the Rules.