Cross-State Unauthorized Practice of Law (2015–2025): Enforcement Trends and Case Examples

Executive Summary

From 2015 through 2025, numerous U.S. jurisdictions took action against attorneys who practiced law in states where they lacked licenses. These enforcement actions – including state bar discipline, civil injunctions with fines, and even criminal prosecutions – underscore that unauthorized practice of law (UPL) remains a serious ethical and legal violation. Attorneys licensed in one state but handling legal matters in another state without proper admission were sanctioned in many instances. Common scenarios involved lawyers appearing in court or negotiating disputes in a state where they weren’t licensed, maintaining a law office in a foreign jurisdiction, or holding themselves out as authorized in a state despite not being admitted there.

States vary in aggressiveness: some (like Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, and Oklahoma) have been notably strict in punishing cross-border practice, while others have modernized rules to accommodate remote work by out-of-state lawyers (for example, Florida, New Jersey, and Texas by 2021–2024). Key trends include:

• Disciplinary Crackdowns: State bars and supreme courts disciplined attorneys for UPL across a range of practice types – from litigation to transactional work. Penalties ranged from private reprimands to multi-year suspensions and disbarment. For instance, Minnesota privately admonished a Colorado lawyer for merely negotiating via email on behalf of Minnesota relatives (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com), and Illinois suspended a New York lawyer 90 days for appearing in an Illinois case without admission (isba.org). In New York, practicing while suspended (thus not authorized) led to disbarment (law.justia.com).
• Civil Enforcement and Criminal Cases: In some jurisdictions, UPL by an out-of-state attorney prompted civil enforcement or criminal charges. The Ohio State Bar, for example, obtained a court injunction and $25,000 in penalties against a D.C.-licensed lawyer who handled Ohio legal matters without an Ohio license (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). In Rhode Island, two Massachusetts attorneys who operated a Providence law office for 18 years without Rhode Island licenses pleaded no contest to criminal misdemeanor UPL charges (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). They were barred from practice in RI and later suspended in MA (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).
• Modernizing Remote Practice Rules: The COVID-19 era accelerated reforms clarifying that lawyers may work remotely in a state where they aren’t admitted if they only practice law of jurisdictions where they are licensed. In 2020, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 495 stating that a lawyer doing home-state legal work while physically in another state is not violating UPL as long as they are “invisible” to the local jurisdiction (not holding out or taking local clients) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). Following this, states like Florida and New Jersey officially approved such arrangements. A 2021 New Jersey opinion concluded that “Non-New Jersey licensed lawyers may practice out-of-state law from inside New Jersey” so long as they don’t present themselves as NJ attorneys or establish a local office (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). Similarly, in 2021 the Florida Supreme Court approved an advisory opinion allowing a New Jersey lawyer to work remotely from a Florida home on New Jersey cases without it being UPL (isba.org). By 2024, Texas amended its rules to permit non-Texas attorneys to practice their own jurisdiction’s law from Texas, provided they do not hold out as Texas lawyers or take Texas-law matters (texasbarpractice.com) (texasbarpractice.com).
• Common Violations: The most frequently penalized unauthorized practices were: (1) unlicensed litigation (appearing in court or hearings without pro hac vice admission), (2) establishing a continuous presence (law office or ongoing practice) in a state where not licensed, (3) negotiating or advising on legal rights for clients in another state (even via email or phone) without meeting that state’s criteria, and (4) misrepresenting one’s licensing status (e.g., using letterhead, titles, or ads implying licensure in a state where the attorney isn’t admitted). Each of these has led to discipline. For example, Ohio’s Supreme Court emphasized that any person “not licensed to practice law in Ohio” who negotiates legal claims or advises Ohio residents is engaging in UPL (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). And in Pennsylvania, an attorney was suspended for falsely implying he was admitted in PA on LinkedIn and representing a client in a local school proceeding without a PA license (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).
• Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) Nuances: While the ABA Model Rule 5.5 provides safe harbors for temporary practice in another state (e.g. associating with local counsel, related to a court proceeding, or arising out of home-state practice), not all states interpreted these expansively. The Minnesota Supreme Court in 2016 took a narrow view, refusing to consider an email negotiation “reasonably related” to the lawyer’s Colorado practice, and found no safe harbor to apply (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Dissenting justices criticized this as a “troubling” step backward from the modern reality of mobile practice (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). In contrast, most jurisdictions now lean toward a more pragmatic approach, especially for purely remote work that doesn’t touch the host state’s law or residents.

Overall, the decade saw robust enforcement of traditional UPL boundaries (to protect local consumers and courts (thelawforlawyerstoday.com)) alongside a gradual evolution of rules to accommodate lawyers’ increasingly cross-border and virtual practices. The following sections provide a state-by-state breakdown of major enforcement actions and the emerging trends in UPL regulation across jurisdictions.

State-by-State Enforcement Highlights

California

California’s UPL enforcement largely focuses on non-lawyers, but it has provisions affecting out-of-state attorneys. Under California law, only active California licensees may practice California law, but attorneys licensed elsewhere who practice only federal law (e.g. immigration) may do so from California (calbar.ca.gov). Thus, a New York-barred lawyer can handle exclusively federal immigration cases in California without a CA license. California has pursued hundreds of UPL complaints (612 were opened in 2020 alone) (calbar.ca.gov), though those mostly involve non-attorneys. No high-profile disciplinary cases from 2015–2025 involved out-of-state lawyers purely for remote practice of home-state law, likely due to California’s acceptance of such practice as long as the lawyer doesn’t mislead clients into thinking they are California-barred. Nonetheless, if an out-of-state attorney were to take on California state-law matters without admission (e.g. giving California legal advice or appearing in a California court), they would violate California’s Business & Professions Code §6125 and face potential misdemeanor charges or injunction. California’s stance by 2025 is accommodating for cross-border practice in federal matters but firm that practicing California law requires a California license (calawyers.org).

Colorado

Colorado has dealt with UPL by both in-state and out-of-state attorneys. In a notable 2023 case, People v. Edward Werner, the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred a lawyer for practicing in Colorado without a license (lawweekcolorado.com). Werner, previously licensed in New Jersey and New York (but suspended in both), moved to Colorado and began representing a friend in a Colorado civil lawsuit and a related arbitration despite being unlicensed there (lawweekcolorado.com) (lawweekcolorado.com). He filed motions and argued law on the client’s behalf (lawweekcolorado.com). The Colorado disciplinary authorities treated this as egregious UPL – since Werner was a lawyer (albeit from another state), the regulatory arm proceeded with formal discipline, ultimately disbarring him from any Colorado practice (lawweekcolorado.com).

Colorado has also reciprocally disciplined its own licensees for out-of-state misconduct. For example, when Pennsylvania suspended a Colorado-licensed attorney Brendan J. Magee in 2017 for practicing in Pennsylvania without a license, Colorado imposed the same one-year-and-a-day suspension on him in reciprocity (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Magee had maintained a physical office in Pennsylvania and even acted as counsel in a school expulsion hearing there, all while only admitted in Colorado (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Pennsylvania found he violated PA Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice) and made misrepresentations (claiming to be admitted) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com), and Colorado’s Supreme Court mirrored the discipline, underscoring that attorneys will be punished at home for UPL committed elsewhere (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

These cases show Colorado’s two-pronged approach: it will sanction outsiders who encroach on Colorado’s turf and also hold its licensees accountable for unauthorized practice in other states. By 2025, Colorado’s rules (Colo. RPC 5.5) remain strict, but they allow temporary practice and association with local counsel consistent with the ABA Model Rule. The Werner case, however, signals that blatant unauthorized representation (especially involving court proceedings in Colorado) will result in the highest sanction.

Florida

Florida historically has a very active stance against UPL, supported by a standing Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee and occasional prosecutions. Many Florida UPL cases target non-lawyer notaries and others, but licensed attorneys are not exempt from scrutiny. For instance, Florida permanently disbarred Gerald Adams in 2021 for continuing to practice while suspended – he had tried to bypass his suspension by having a non-lawyer run his firm on paper, while he kept providing legal services (advertising “document preparation” that was essentially legal work) (floridabar.org). The Florida Supreme Court found this to be contempt of its suspension order and clear UPL, justifying disbarment (floridabar.org).

When it comes to out-of-state lawyers physically in Florida, Florida was among the first to officially address the pandemic-era remote work question. In a 2021 advisory opinion (FL UPL Advisory Op. 2019-4), the Florida Bar concluded that an out-of-state attorney living in Florida may practice the law of her home jurisdiction from her Florida residence without it being UPL, so long as she does not hold out as a Florida lawyer or take Florida legal work (isba.org) (isba.org). The case in question involved a New Jersey-barred lawyer working remotely from Florida – the Bar found she “was not practicing Florida law or providing legal services for Florida residents”, and had no public Florida presence, thus no Florida license was required (isba.org) (isba.org). The Florida Supreme Court approved this opinion on May 20, 2021 (isba.org). This clarified that Florida’s concern is primarily with protecting the public from unqualified advice on Florida law, not with policing mere physical location.

Nonetheless, if an out-of-state lawyer without a Florida license were to represent Florida clients or handle Florida legal matters, Florida would view it as UPL. Such cases have occurred: e.g., Florida has pursued injunctions against lawyers licensed elsewhere who set up shop handling Florida legal business. Florida is known as one of the more aggressive states (along with Ohio and others) in investigating UPL complaints (bwjp.org). In summary, Florida will discipline even its own members for UPL (as in Adams’ case) and will take action (now usually civil injunctions or Bar proceedings) against out-of-state attorneys improperly doing Florida legal work. However, by 2025 Florida also explicitly permits cross-border remote practice when confined to the attorney’s licensed jurisdiction’s law (isba.org), reflecting a balanced approach.

Illinois

Illinois authorities have not hesitated to discipline lawyers for unauthorized practice in the state. In Illinois, a lawyer must be licensed or admitted pro hac vice to handle Illinois legal matters; otherwise it’s UPL and an ethical violation (IL Rule of Prof. Conduct 5.5). One representative case was In re Maurice J. Salem (2018). Salem, a New York-admitted attorney, appeared in an Illinois court proceeding and falsely represented himself as an Illinois attorney (isba.org). He had never been admitted in Illinois. The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) charged Salem with UPL and dishonesty. The result: Salem was suspended for 90 days and until further order by the Illinois Supreme Court (isba.org). This discipline underscores that Illinois will sanction out-of-state lawyers who physically practice law in Illinois without authorization.

Illinois also considers out-of-state legal work reaching into Illinois as potential UPL. A 2023 Illinois State Bar ethics opinion analyzed whether an out-of-state attorney could send a demand letter to an Illinois business on behalf of an Illinois resident concerning an Illinois dispute. The opinion noted that physical presence is not required for UPL – even correspondence negotiating legal claims in Illinois could constitute practicing law “in Illinois” (isba.org). It cited the Minnesota case (the Colorado lawyer emailing from out-of-state) as persuasive authority that communications into the state count as practice (isba.org) (isba.org). Illinois concluded that the non-Illinois lawyer in the inquiry would be engaging in UPL by counseling on an Illinois legal dispute via demand letters, unless she sought pro hac vice admission or associated with local counsel. Conversely, Illinois acknowledged scenarios where cross-border practice is permissible (for example, an Illinois lawyer working an Illinois case while temporarily in another state, or an out-of-state lawyer working on a matter “reasonably related” to their home state practice). But the Salem discipline and the 2023 opinion show Illinois’ relatively strict view: if the legal services involve Illinois law or clients, an Illinois license or specific authority is required. Out-of-state lawyers have been and will be disciplined if they overstep (the Salem case is now a cautionary tale in Illinois ethics materials (isba.org)).

Massachusetts & Rhode Island

These two states produced a dramatic joint-enforcement story. Two brothers, Carl and Samuel Lovett, licensed in Massachusetts but not Rhode Island, opened a Providence, RI law office and for 18 years practiced law in Rhode Island without RI licenses (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). They tried to evade detection by having a minority partner who was RI-admitted (the wife of one brother) and later hiring one RI-licensed associate, but in reality the brothers handled all the legal work on Rhode Island cases except formal court appearances (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). They would delegate the signing of pleadings to the locally admitted lawyers to technically comply with court rules, while they themselves ran the cases day-to-day. Eventually (after a client complaint), Rhode Island’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee investigated and the brothers were caught. In 2017, each brother pleaded nolo contendere to five misdemeanor counts related to UPL in Rhode Island (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). They agreed to cease practicing in RI and were barred from maintaining a Rhode Island office (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). This criminal resolution highlights that Rhode Island treats UPL as a crime (as many states do) and will prosecute even licensed attorneys if they flout the licensing requirement on an ongoing basis.

The story didn’t end there. The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers then brought disciplinary proceedings against the Lovett brothers for this misconduct. Citing Mass. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5.5(a) (prohibiting practice “in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction”), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court suspended both brothers from practice in MA for one year (initially a longer stayed suspension had been proposed, but the SJC opted for an active one-year suspension) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The Massachusetts court noted that under Model Rule 8.5, a lawyer can be disciplined by their home state for conduct in another jurisdiction, especially when that conduct has an effect in the home state or violates the rules of both states (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The Lovetts’ long-term deception in Rhode Island triggered reciprocal discipline at home, effectively ending their ability to simply retreat to Massachusetts to continue practicing.

Key lessons from MA/RI: Operating in a state where you aren’t licensed, especially through a physical office, is among the most serious UPL violations – it yielded criminal convictions in RI and professional discipline in MA. Even careful attempts to skirt the rules (using licensed figureheads) will not immunize an attorney, as seen by the eventual outcome. Rhode Island demonstrated aggressiveness in UPL enforcement (not just cease-and-desist but actual convictions), and Massachusetts demonstrated that a lawyer’s primary licensing state will punish them for out-of-state UPL to uphold overall professional standards (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

Minnesota

Minnesota garnered national attention in 2016 with an especially strict stance on a cross-border practice scenario. In In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel File No. 39302, a Minnesota disciplinary case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a Colorado lawyer engaged in UPL in Minnesota by sending a series of emails negotiating a settlement – even though the lawyer never set foot in Minnesota (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). This attorney was licensed in Colorado and was helping his Minnesota-based in-laws resolve a $2,300 judgment from afar. Over about four months, he communicated via email with the Minnesota creditor’s lawyer and eventually reached a settlement offer (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The Colorado lawyer believed he was simply practicing Colorado law (debt collection negotiations) remotely, or at least that his conduct was “reasonably related” to his Colorado practice (which included collections) such that it fell under the safe harbor of Rule 5.5(c). Minnesota’s Rule 5.5, like the ABA Model Rule, has a provision allowing temporary practice by an out-of-state lawyer if the work “arises out of or is reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in” their home jurisdiction (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, took a very “border-protective” view: It found that by emailing and negotiating on a Minnesota matter, the lawyer had practiced law in Minnesota without a license (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Importantly, the court rejected the safe harbor argument that the matter was related to his Colorado practice – even though collections were part of his practice – declaring that merely being contacted in Colorado and having relevant experience did not make the legal work related to Colorado (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The majority essentially said the lawyer’s knowledge stopped “at the state line,” and once he crossed into advising on Minnesota legal rights (even by electronic communication), he was in unauthorized territory (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The outcome was a private admonition, the lowest level of discipline, since it was a first-time minor violation (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). (The attorney’s name was not published in the opinion due to the private nature of the sanction, but the case itself served as a public warning.)

This case shows Minnesota’s aggressive enforcement posture as of 2016, which many found surprising and somewhat controversial. Three justices dissented, calling the decision “troubling and counterproductive” and a “step backwards” from the trend of accommodating multijurisdictional practice (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). They believed the emails were indeed reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice and that the majority’s approach would force lawyers to turn away friends/family seeking help in states where the lawyer isn’t admitted (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Despite the dissent, the precedent was set: in Minnesota, even purely remote legal work (like advising via email) on behalf of a Minnesota client can be deemed UPL if you’re not licensed there (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

It’s worth noting that Minnesota’s case, coming 14 years after the ABA’s MJP reforms, stood out. By 2025, Minnesota has not formally revised Rule 5.5 in response, but the legal community is aware of this strict interpretation. The case is frequently cited in ethics opinions elsewhere as a caution (Illinois referenced it when discussing out-of-state demand letters, for example (isba.org) (isba.org)). In practice, a lawyer unlicensed in Minnesota must be very careful – e.g., limit activity to what is explicitly allowed (assisting in a matter pending elsewhere, associating with Minnesota counsel, or other safe harbors) – or risk discipline. Minnesota did, however, allow temporary practice for certain scenarios (and in 2022 temporarily allowed out-of-state lawyers to provide remote legal services to displaced clients after a hurricane, per an emergency order (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com), showing some flexibility in crisis situations). Still, among states, Minnesota is cited as one of the more aggressive UPL enforcers when it comes to cross-border practice.

New Jersey

New Jersey’s approach to cross-border practice underwent a significant evolution during 2015–2025. Historically, New Jersey was quite strict about any form of practice within the state’s borders by non-NJ lawyers. In fact, years ago the NJ Supreme Court Committee on UPL had issued Opinion 33, which suggested that even practicing federal law or another state’s law from an office in New Jersey constituted UPL if the attorney wasn’t NJ-licensed. This position caused concern for multijurisdictional firms and telecommuting lawyers in NJ.

By 2021, however, New Jersey reversed course to align with modern views. In Joint Opinion 59/742 (2021), New Jersey’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and UPL Committee concluded that lawyers not admitted in NJ may work remotely from New Jersey on matters from other jurisdictions, “provided they do not maintain a ‘continuous and systematic presence’ in New Jersey by practicing law from a New Jersey office or holding themselves out as available for NJ legal work.” (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). In other words, an out-of-state lawyer living in NJ can continue to serve her out-of-state clients from her NJ home, so long as she isn’t advertising as a NJ attorney or taking NJ cases. The Committees noted many inquiries from attorneys living in NJ but working for out-of-state firms, and this opinion brought relief by clarifying that such arrangements are not UPL in NJ (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com).

With this 2021 joint opinion, New Jersey joined the growing number of jurisdictions embracing remote practice (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). The opinion explicitly cites that NJ joins states like Florida, Utah, Maine, and others in this stance (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). It reflects ABA Formal Op. 495’s reasoning that if a lawyer is “invisible as a lawyer” to the local community (no local client solicitation or presence), then their physical location in that state is irrelevant for UPL (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com).

As for enforcement, there were no widely reported disciplinary cases in NJ during 2015–2025 solely for an out-of-state attorney working remotely. NJ’s notable UPL prosecutions in the past typically involved either non-lawyers or attorneys handling NJ matters without a license (for example, some out-of-state lawyers were disciplined or enjoined for doing NJ real estate or foreclosure work without admission in the 2010s). By the latter part of our timeframe, New Jersey’s focus shifted to facilitating permissible multijurisdictional practice rather than penalizing harmless remote work. However, New Jersey would still pursue action if, say, a New York lawyer without NJ admission handled a New Jersey legal matter – that would violate NJ RPC 5.5. In such cases, discipline or injunctions could apply (and NJ, like many states, considers UPL a fourth-degree crime by statute, though prosecutions are rare).

In summary, New Jersey was traditionally aggressive but has adapted: it now clearly allows cross-border virtual practice (for non-NJ law) from within its borders (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com), while presumably remaining strict that practicing New Jersey law requires New Jersey admission.

New York

New York requires that anyone practicing law in the state be admitted (or otherwise authorized by law). The state has a heavy volume of attorneys and a robust disciplinary system. From 2015–2025, New York discipline cases regarding UPL often involved attorneys who continued to practice after being suspended or disbarred, which is considered practicing without a license. For example, Matter of Rosenbaum (2018) illustrates New York’s intolerance for practicing while not authorized. Attorney Stephan Rosenbaum was suspended in 2013 for administrative non-compliance (failing to register and pay fees) (law.justia.com). He never cured his suspension, yet he continued to practice law – representing clients, handling cases – for years while suspended (law.justia.com). The First Department (Appellate Division) found this was a willful engagement in UPL in violation of Judiciary Law §486 and the court’s prior order (law.justia.com) (law.justia.com). In 2017, the court immediately suspended Rosenbaum again on an interim basis for the UPL, and in 2018 it disbarred him when he failed to respond further (law.justia.com) (law.justia.com). New York treated the continued practice as an immediate threat to the public interest (law.justia.com). This case is representative: New York will disbar attorneys who ignore suspension orders and keep practicing, as that is essentially practicing without a license.

In terms of out-of-state attorneys practicing NY law, New York has long had an “office requirement” (Judiciary Law §470) that caused confusion: it required non-resident NY-admitted lawyers to maintain a physical office in NY. That was litigated (Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman, 2016) and ultimately the law was upheld, but the legislature later relaxed it. However, that pertains to lawyers admitted in NY but living elsewhere. If a lawyer is not admitted in New York at all, they generally cannot practice NY law or appear in NY courts (unless pro hac vice for a specific case).

Notable enforcement: New York grievance committees have brought actions against out-of-state firms or lawyers for the unlicensed practice of NY law. For instance, in the Giscombe case (2015), a New Jersey attorney who wasn’t admitted in NY nonetheless practiced immigration law from a NY office. Immigration is federal, but he also gave advice on NY law matters (like divorces). He was prosecuted for UPL. Similarly, New York disciplined attorneys who aided UPL – e.g., hiring a disbarred lawyer and letting them counsel clients (like Matter of Sackeyfio, 2020). These actions show New York’s enforcement extends to preventing unlicensed individuals from practicing and attorneys from facilitating it.

By 2025, New York was also examining its stance on remote practice. In 2020–2021, proposals were made to clarify that an out-of-state lawyer who is physically in NY but practicing only her home-state law is not violating NY’s rules. The New York State Bar Association in 2022 recommended confirming that such conduct is permissible (in line with ABA Op. 495). And indeed, NY’s Rule 5.5 was always understood to allow “temporary” practice in certain scenarios and forbid establishing an office or holding out as NY lawyer if not admitted (nysba.org). The key gray area – whether merely being physically in NY while working on, say, New Jersey cases is “practicing law in NY” – is being resolved in favor of permissiveness (nysba.org) (nysba.org).

In summary, New York aggressively polices unauthorized practice when it impacts New Yorkers (especially by suspended or non-admitted lawyers). It has meted out severe discipline for those violations (public protection is paramount – as the court noted in Rosenbaum, such conduct “immediately threatened the public interest” (law.justia.com)). At the same time, New York is updating rules to better accommodate interstate remote practice (so that, for example, a lawyer admitted in Connecticut but living in NYC working on Connecticut cases is not unfairly considered a violator). But any attorney actually doing New York legal work must be admitted in New York or risk sanctions.

Ohio

Ohio has been particularly assertive in pursuing unauthorized practice by out-of-state attorneys. Ohio’s system allows the state bar or local bar associations to bring UPL complaints before the Ohio Supreme Court, which can issue injunctions and monetary penalties (up to $10,000 per offense). The Doheny case exemplifies Ohio’s approach. In Ohio State Bar Ass’n v. Doheny (2019), the Ohio Supreme Court enjoined Donald Doheny Jr., who had been licensed in Indiana, Virginia, and D.C. but not Ohio, from any future practice in Ohio and fined him $25,000 (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Doheny had established himself in Ohio and over a period of years provided legal services to Ohio residents – including legal advice, negotiating settlements, and drafting real estate documents for Ohio properties – all without an Ohio license (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). He even held himself out with an “Esq.” title on Ohio correspondence and used an Ohio office address on letterhead, creating the impression he was an Ohio attorney (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). These actions led the Court to find 10 instances of UPL (and one more alleged instance was unproven) (supremecourt.ohio.gov) (supremecourt.ohio.gov).

The Ohio Supreme Court’s language was instructive: “when an individual who is not licensed to practice law in Ohio negotiates legal claims on behalf of Ohio residents or advises Ohio residents of their legal rights… he or she is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.” (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) Ohio also noted that holding oneself out as authorized in Ohio when not licensed is itself UPL by statutory definition (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Because Doheny did both, the court imposed a hefty civil penalty ($2,500 for each of 10 violations) and a permanent injunction barring him from Ohio practice (supremecourt.ohio.gov) (supremecourt.ohio.gov).

Another case, Ohio State Bar v. Kafele (decided earlier, but illustrating the principle), involved a DC attorney who opened a debt-adjustment business in Ohio – he too was fined and enjoined. And in OSBA v. Doheny, the Court even observed that if you’re not licensed in Ohio, they consider you “not a lawyer at all” for Ohio’s purposes (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). This underscores the point that a bar license is jurisdiction-specific; having one elsewhere doesn’t confer any privilege in Ohio.

Ohio does allow visiting attorneys to practice temporarily in some instances (its Rule 5.5 parallels the Model Rule). But Ohio has also made regulatory adjustments in recent years to be more flexible: In 2021, Ohio amended Rule 5.5 to explicitly allow lawyers licensed elsewhere to provide legal services remotely to clients back in their home state while the lawyer is in Ohio, as long as they don’t hold out as Ohio lawyers or handle Ohio matters (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). This came after the Utah opinion that famously asked what interest a state has in regulating someone “simply because he has a private home” there if they practice law of another jurisdiction (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). Ohio seems to agree in theory – but in practice, when someone like Doheny started serving Ohio clients, Ohio brought the hammer down.

Thus, Ohio’s trend is twofold: strict enforcement against those who touch Ohio legal matters without admission, and greater clarity/leniency for purely remote practice that doesn’t involve Ohio clients or law. Attorneys should note that Ohio can and will impose civil fines and injunctions rather than just relying on disciplinary measures. The Ohio State Bar Association remains active in searching out UPL – often through client complaints – and bringing such cases to the Supreme Court’s attention (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

Oklahoma

Oklahoma saw one of the more extreme cases of an attorney practicing without a license. Douglas Stephen Tripp had graduated law school and worked from 2006 to 2018 at an Oklahoma law firm, handling Oklahoma legal matters, despite never being licensed in Oklahoma (law.justia.com) (law.justia.com). He apparently misled his firm and clients for over a decade, claiming to be an Oklahoma lawyer. In 2019, when this came to light, the Oklahoma Bar Association brought a disciplinary complaint. Tripp resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings (law.justia.com) (law.justia.com) – effectively an admission of the allegations and equivalent to disbarment (resignation pending discipline in Oklahoma means the lawyer is not eligible to reapply for membership for at least 5 years, and the resignation is tantamount to disbarment).

The allegations in the complaint (summarized in the Supreme Court’s order approving his resignation) were that Tripp established a continuous presence in Oklahoma for the practice of law and held himself out as an Oklahoma-licensed attorney, knowing he was not (law.justia.com) (law.justia.com). For 12 years, he represented clients on Oklahoma law issues and deceived both the firm and those clients about his licensure (law.justia.com). This violates Oklahoma’s versions of Rule 5.5(b)(1) (practicing where not licensed), 5.5(b)(2) (holding out as licensed), and 8.4(c) (dishonesty) (law.justia.com). The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in approving his resignation, made it clear that such conduct would have resulted in severe discipline if not for the resignation – likely disbarment had it proceeded to a final order. Indeed, the court referenced prior cases and the range of discipline for UPL, indicating this is among the most serious violations of an attorney’s oath (okbar.org) (courthousenews.com).

Oklahoma has also disciplined attorneys for practicing while suspended, another form of UPL. For example, in State ex rel. OBA v. Garrett (2017), a lawyer was disbarred for continuing to practice during suspension. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that “attorneys must not engage in the unauthorized practice of law, including practicing while suspended” (okbar.org).

By 2025, Oklahoma’s stance is clear: practicing in Oklahoma without an Oklahoma license is a grave offense. The Tripp case is an outlier in duration and deceit, but it underscores that an attorney cannot assume they won’t be found out eventually. Oklahoma, like most states, allows limited temporary practice (pro hac vice admission for litigation, etc.), but those who ignore the rules face career-ending consequences. The state also has criminal UPL statutes (unauthorized practice can be a misdemeanor), though we see the bar discipline route was effective in Tripp’s scenario. Oklahoma’s enforcement approach aligns with protecting the public from uncredentialed practitioners and maintaining the integrity of its bar.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has addressed unauthorized practice both through disciplinary actions and evolving policy on remote work. A prominent enforcement example was the case of Brendan Magee (discussed earlier under Colorado). Magee was a Colorado-licensed lawyer who set up an office in Pennsylvania and represented a client in a Pennsylvania school expulsion hearing without a PA license. He even falsely implied licensure (his letterhead and statements did not clarify his status) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). In 2017, Pennsylvania’s Disciplinary Board found he violated PA RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice) and 8.4(c) (misrepresentation) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Magee for one year and one day (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) – which is significant because suspensions longer than a year require a formal reinstatement process (the added “and a day” is a common way to ensure a tougher penalty). This case was public (reported decision) and served to remind lawyers that holding out an office in PA and acting as an attorney without admission is serious misconduct. Pennsylvania’s action led to reciprocal discipline in Colorado, as mentioned (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

Pennsylvania also saw cases of attorneys from other states handling Pennsylvania legal matters (like transactional work or appearing in Pennsylvania courts) who got disciplined or enjoined. Additionally, Pennsylvania lawyers have been disciplined for aiding UPL – for example, by partnering with disbarred lawyers in firm work. The Pennsylvania bar’s general approach is to treat any violation of Rule 5.5 as a disciplinable offense.

On the trend side, Pennsylvania in recent years has become more permissive for pure remote practice. In 2020, the Pennsylvania Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 2020-300, opining in line with ABA 495 that a PA-licensed lawyer could work remotely from another state, and conversely that an out-of-state lawyer could work remotely from PA on their own state’s matters, as long as they do not advertise or represent that they can do PA legal work. By 2022, Pennsylvania had joined states explicitly saying physical presence alone isn’t UPL (mentioned in the NJ Joint Opinion as one of the jurisdictions taking that view (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com)).

So, Pennsylvania’s trend: Enforce the rule against those who actively practice Pennsylvania law without a license (like Magee) – which can mean discipline or referral to UPL committees – but embrace the notion that someone can be in Pennsylvania and practice law of another state if done quietly and solely for out-of-state clients. If an out-of-state lawyer were to, for instance, draft a Pennsylvania will or negotiate a Pennsylvania real estate deal without PA admission, they would risk both disciplinary action (if they have a license elsewhere to punish) and possibly a cease-and-desist from the PA Bar. In contrast, a New York lawyer living in Philadelphia doing only New York cases is not a target under current guidance. Pennsylvania thus strikes a balance between preventing unlicensed local practice and not hindering interstate mobility for lawyers whose work doesn’t implicate Pennsylvania interests.

Texas

Texas did not have widely publicized disciplinary cases in this period specifically for attorneys practicing without a license, but it has clear rules and even updated them to address remote practice. Under Texas Disciplinary Rule 5.05, a lawyer not licensed in Texas generally may not establish an office or represent to the public they are a Texas attorney. Historically, Texas enforced this through disciplinary actions (if the person was a lawyer licensed elsewhere) or via injunctions (Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee can sue violators) and occasionally criminal charges for egregious cases. For example, in earlier years, the Texas UPL Committee took action against out-of-state law firms operating in Texas without registration.

Significantly, effective October 1, 2024, Texas amended Rule 5.05 to explicitly allow non-Texas licensed attorneys to practice law from Texas remotely, under certain conditions (texasbarpractice.com) (texasbarpractice.com). The new Rule 5.05(d) permits an attorney licensed and in good standing elsewhere to practice the law of their licensing jurisdiction (or federal law) from a “temporary or permanent” Texas location if they: (1) do not advertise or hold out as Texas lawyers, (2) do not take Texas clients or matters that require Texas law expertise, and (3) correct any misunderstanding if someone assumes they are Texas-licensed (texasbarpractice.com) (texasbarpractice.com). The rule basically codifies the consensus that presence in Texas =/= practicing Texas law so long as the attorney makes no claim to Texas credentials and stays within the bounds of what they’re licensed to do elsewhere. This change aligned Texas with states like Florida and NJ in adapting to the remote work reality.

Prior to this rule change, Texas’s enforcement of UPL mostly saw disciplinary action when, say, a disbarred lawyer kept practicing or an out-of-state lawyer handled a Texas legal matter without going through pro hac vice. Texas has also allowed in-house counsel to register even if not Texas-barred (Rule 5.05(c) provides a safe harbor for in-house counsel practicing for their employer in Texas, as long as they’re licensed somewhere and not disbarred anywhere) (texasbarpractice.com).

Therefore, by 2025 Texas is relatively welcoming to cross-border practice in the limited sense of physical presence. But it remains protective of its legal market for Texas legal matters. If an attorney attempts to represent a Texas resident in a divorce or appear in a Texas court without a license, Texas would treat it as UPL (possibly referring to the local District Attorney or to the UPL Committee). Texas’s UPL Committee historically has been active (famously suing companies like LegalZoom and others for UPL issues). For licensed attorneys, the typical consequence would be an injunction and inability to get licensed in Texas in the future, plus any discipline from their home state for violating Texas’s rules.

In summary, Texas now differentiates between “practicing law in Texas” and “practicing law from Texas”: the former requires a license, the latter can be permissible if confined to out-of-state or federal work (texasbarpractice.com). This is a clear trend toward flexibility. Yet, Texas will still be aggressive if someone actually holds themselves out as a Texas attorney without credentials – something explicitly forbidden by the rule (texasbarpractice.com).

Other Jurisdictions

Many other states have had similar enforcement actions and rule adaptations, though not all made headlines. Some additional observations:

• Washington, D.C.: The District of Columbia has a unique position – it hosts many federally focused lawyers. D.C. allows attorneys licensed elsewhere to be specially admitted in D.C. for federal practice or as in-house counsel. It requires those who aren’t D.C.-barred and not working for the federal government to register if they practice under certain conditions. Enforcement in D.C. has targeted unlicensed practitioners in immigration scams, etc., but an out-of-state lawyer working for, say, a federal agency in D.C. is generally fine (federal supremacy). D.C. did discipline lawyers who practiced D.C. law without admission. But because D.C. has a relatively open-door via its admission process and many reciprocity rules, fewer issues arose 2015–2025.
• Virginia: Virginia regards UPL as a crime and has UPL opinions. One notable area has been immigration law – Virginia warned that non-Virginia lawyers handling state law issues (even incidental to federal immigration practice) could be UPL (calbar.ca.gov). However, a lawyer licensed elsewhere can practice federal immigration law in Virginia without a VA license, consistent with the principle that federal law practice is not restricted by state bar rules (calbar.ca.gov). Virginia’s disciplinary board did handle cases of out-of-state lawyers making court appearances without pro hac vice – usually resulting in fines or contempt findings.
• Georgia: Georgia’s Bar and UPL Standing Committee have been active. In the past, Georgia obtained injunctions against out-of-state firms doing debt collection litigation in Georgia without using local counsel. During our period, Georgia also joined the post-2020 trend: in 2021, the Georgia Bar issued guidance similar to ABA 495, not opposing remote practice by out-of-state lawyers in Georgia if they don’t practice Georgia law or mislead the public. Georgia continues to prosecute non-lawyers aggressively for UPL and would discipline lawyers who cross the line (e.g., a Florida lawyer who handled a Georgia real estate closing without being admitted, if caught, could face both Georgia UPL action and Florida Bar discipline for violating another jurisdiction’s rules).
• North Carolina & South Carolina: These states have UPL committees that investigate complaints. They often focus on non-lawyer UPL (e.g., notaries in immigration). But they have also issued cease-and-desist letters to attorneys licensed elsewhere who offered services to local residents without local admission. By 2022, North Carolina’s State Bar had published guidance essentially agreeing that a lawyer licensed elsewhere can telework from NC for their home-state clients (mirroring ABA 495) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). South Carolina in 2022 approved a similar formal opinion. There was a known South Carolina case (2009 In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed) that actually allowed some flexibility for temporary practice, which set a tone continued into our timeframe.
• Maine, Utah, etc.: Maine issued an ethics opinion in 2020 approving of remote practice by non-Maine lawyers in Maine (provided no Maine client work). Utah’s Ethics Opinion 19-03 (2019) was one of the first, boldly stating “what interest does the Utah State Bar have in regulating an out-of-state lawyer’s practice for out-of-state clients simply because he has a home in Utah? And the answer… none.” (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). This influenced other states. Utah also experimented with regulatory reforms (sandbox for non-traditional legal services), but that’s tangential to UPL by already-licensed attorneys.
• States with Border Towns: In places like Kansas/Missouri or DC/Maryland/Virginia, cross-border practice is common (lawyers often get admitted in both, or only one and rely on pro hac vice). These states have pursued lawyers who skip the proper procedures. For example, a Missouri attorney who handled an Illinois matter without Illinois admission could face Illinois discipline (Illinois disciplined a Missouri lawyer in In re J.E.H., 2016, for cross-border estate work). Likewise, Maryland has disciplined Maryland attorneys for supervising unlicensed practice in D.C., and vice versa, through reciprocal actions (e.g., an attorney disbarred in D.C. partly for UPL in Maryland had Maryland take reciprocal action in 2021 (mdcourts.gov)).

The pattern is that no state completely ignores UPL by attorneys – all have mechanisms to address it – but the intensity ranges. Virtually all states now permit temporary practice in some form (per ABA Model Rule 5.5(c) adopted everywhere in some fashion), and post-COVID nearly all have said working remotely = okay (if only doing your jurisdiction’s work). Thus, enforcement is targeted at clear violations: taking cases in a state where you’re not licensed (outside of the exceptions), establishing an office or continuous presence holding out as an attorney, or practicing while you’ve lost the license you had.

Below, we summarize notable cases and categorize the types of UPL violations and enforcement actions across states in two tables.

Key Examples and Patterns in UPL Enforcement

Table 1: Examples of Unauthorized Practice of Law Enforcement (2015–2025)

Table 2: Patterns of UPL Violations and Enforcement

Sources: Primary disciplinary decisions and court opinions from state courts (2015–2025) as cited above; ABA Formal Opinion 495 (2020) on remote practice; state bar ethics opinions (Florida SC20-1220 (2021) (isba.org), NJ ACPE 742 (2021) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com), etc.); and state UPL statutes and rules. Each example illustrates how UPL by licensed attorneys is addressed through a combination of ethical discipline, civil enforcement, and criminal law, depending on the jurisdiction and severity.

Conclusion

Between 2015 and 2025, the enforcement landscape for unauthorized practice by attorneys has been dynamic. On one hand, states remain protective of their jurisdictional licensing authority – attorneys have been disciplined, enjoined, fined, and even criminally convicted for practicing in states where they weren’t authorized. The most aggressive states (like Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, and a few others) sent a clear message that even incidental or well-intentioned practice across state lines can trigger UPL sanctions (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (thelawforlawyerstoday.com). Litigation-related UPL (appearing in court without rights) is uniformly met with discipline, and long-term unlicensed practice (running an office, handling numerous local cases) is apt to bring the harshest consequences – often career-ending in that jurisdiction (thelawforlawyerstoday.com) (law.justia.com). Common themes in these enforcement actions include concern for protecting the public from unqualified or unregulated legal service providers and maintaining the authority of each state’s highest court over legal practice within its borders (thelawforlawyerstoday.com).

On the other hand, the decade also showed a trend toward flexibility and modernization in areas that don’t harm those core interests. The rise of remote work led many jurisdictions to carve out explicit allowances for lawyers to practice “virtually” across state lines without fear of UPL, so long as they stick to their lane (practicing only the law of the states where they are admitted, and not holding out as local counsel in the host state) (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com) (isba.org). This trend was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and backed by the ABA’s formal guidance. By 2025, a significant number of states – including Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Utah, Maine, Texas, and others – had formally aligned their rules with the principle that physical presence ≠ practice of local law in itself (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com) (texasbarpractice.com). This represents a national trend of easing restrictions on multijurisdictional practice in circumstances that pose no reasonable risk to clients or the justice system.

In summary, unauthorized practice of law by attorneys remains a regulated and punishable activity, but attorneys now have clearer guidance on what is permitted. The safest practice for any lawyer is to be admitted (or obtain permission) in each jurisdiction where they practice law for clients – meaning if you take on a matter involving State X law or courts, ensure you’re authorized by State X. The period 2015–2025 has shown that lawyers who ignore that rule do so at their peril, as disciplinary records nationwide are replete with examples of censures, suspensions, and disbarments for UPL violations. However, lawyers can also take comfort that serving clients across state lines has become easier in the purely virtual sense: you typically will not be deemed to be in violation just because you are sitting in State B while doing work for State A, as long as you make it clear you’re not a State B lawyer (vtbarcounsel.wordpress.com). The multijurisdictional practice mosaic is becoming more uniform, but important variations persist. A few states still take a very conservative view (as Minnesota did in 2016), and even post-2020 reforms usually require strict non-holding-out and no local client caveats.

Attorneys engaged in cross-border practice should stay updated on each relevant state’s rules, avail themselves of pro hac vice admissions or reciprocal admissions when needed, and err on the side of transparency and caution. The decade’s enforcement actions ultimately highlight two patterns: (1) Vigilant enforcement when unlicensed practice threatens client interests or the judicial process, and (2) Growing acceptance of the reality that law practice may transcend state lines in the digital age when handled responsibly. By understanding these trends, attorneys can better navigate the do’s and don’ts of multijurisdictional practice and avoid becoming another cautionary tale in the annals of UPL discipline.