What's happening
This bill repeals the law allowing New York attorneys to reside in neighboring states if they have an office in New York.
Why it matters
Could limit career flexibility. for attorneys who live in New Jersey, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania but currently work in New York, as they would no longer be able to practice in NY unless they also reside there, potentially forcing them to move or give up NY clients.
May reduce the pool of available legal talent. in New York, especially in border areas where lawyers often commute from neighboring states, possibly impacting access to legal services for clients.
Signals a shift in professional licensing policy. moving away from accommodating cross-border professionals—which could set a precedent affecting other licensed professions or reciprocal arrangements between states.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Remove Out-of-State Lawyer Ban
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
1 Co-sponsor
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to judiciary
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
End Lawyer Residency Rule
In Assembly Committee · Judiciary · Sponsor David Weprin
Full text
1 pageUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
5708
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
May 13, 2019
Introduced by Sen. HOYLMAN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to repeal section 470 of the judiciary law, relating to allowing attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 470 of the judiciary law is REPEALED.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11516-01-9
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to repeal section 470 of the judiciary law, relating to allowing attorneys having offices in the state to reside in an adjoining state
Purpose or general idea of bill
The purpose of this bill is to remove the current inability of lawyers admitted in New York to practice in the State if they neither reside nor have an office in the state.
Summary of specific provisions
Section 1 of the bill repeals section 470 of the Judiciary law.
Section 2 of the bill is the effective date.
Justification
Section 470 of the Judiciary Law, as interpreted by the New York State Court of Appeals in Schoenefeld v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.3d 22 (2015), requires "nonresident attorneys practicing in New York to main- tain a physical law officer here." (Pg. 27 of decision). The Court of Appeals reaffirmed this requirement in Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Cheyne Specialty Finance Fund L.P. (2019).
Section 470 was enacted in its current form in 1909 following predeces- sor statutes dating from 1862. A central concern at the time was the difficulty in serving attorneys not located in New York. The Court of Appeals noted in the Schoenefeld decision that New York has "an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here."
The Court then considered current law, citing provisions of the CPLR, including 2103(b), and said that there are "currently several means of service upon a nonresident attorney, including mail, overnight delivery, fax and (where permitted) email...." It also noted that Court of Appeals Rule 520.13(a), dealing with admissions to the Bar, requires nonresident attorneys to designate the clerk of an Appellate Division as their agent for service for actions related to legal services offered within the state. It concluded, "the legislature always remains free to take any additional action deemed necessary."
While the Court in Schoenefled was concerned with service on an out-of- state attorney in a pending action, which is governed by CPLR 2103(b), the law regarding service on an out-of-service party, including an attorney named as a party, has changed significantly since 1909. Until the mid-1940s, there was a significant challenge to obtaining personal jurisdiction over an attorney who resided and maintained an office out of state who performed legal services within the state. Since the advent of "Long Arm Jurisdiction," and the enactment of CPLR 302(a), obtaining jurisdiction over such an attorney is no longer problematic.
With modern day mechanisms for serving papers on attorneys not located in the state and CPLR 302(a) providing a jurisdictional basis for service outside the state, there is no reason to require a bricks and mortar office as specified in section 470. The concerns that led to the adoption of this section more than a century ago no longer exist, and the current statutory prohibition serves no purpose in today's global environment. Its repeal would not create any significant difficulties arising from the lack of an attorney's physical office within the state.
Legislative history
None, new bill.
Fiscal implications
None.
Effective date
This act shall take effect immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.