NJ Law Journal: Admission by Motion urged

One of the peculiarities of New Jersey practice is that New York used to allow admission on motion by out of state lawyers.  But about 20 years ago New York limited the privilege  to lawyers from states which offered reciprocity.  New Jersey has refused the offer.  A flood of New York lawyers ignorant and disrespectful of local practice norms has been the dominant justification.  Of course there is no evidence of abuse by  those admitted without exam before the rule change.  Now the New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board has called for the issue to be reopened. - GWC
New Jersey Law Journal
Editorial, September 23, 2011
copyright American Lawyer Media

Cross-border practice among adjoining states is already a reality, with 70 percent of New Jersey lawyers admitted in another jurisdiction: 43 percent in New York and 23 percent in Pennsylvania. Decisions like that in Schoenfeld v. State of New York will only enhance the trend, as did our Supreme Court's amendment of R. 1:21-1 (a) to maintain our bona fide office requirement but allow it to be in another state.

As the trend toward multijurisdictional practice continues, it makes sense to consider whether passage of the New Jersey bar examination should continue to be a requirement for admission to practice in this state. Should good standing in another state, some years of experience, a willingness to meet CLE requirements and adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct — which compel competence and diligence — satisfy New Jersey's legitimate interest in affording competent legal assistance to the its citizens?

Eight years ago, the Ad Hoc Committee on Bar Admissions, chaired by Judge John Wallace Jr., urged that we follow a trend to permit admission by motion established by 25 states and the District of Columbia — a move that would "enrich the practice of law in this state ... by increasing the available pool of knowledgeable attorneys." The Wallace Committee noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly looked askance at residential restrictions on the practice of law and that "a client has a right to be represented at all times by counsel of his own choosing." The committee urged measures to assure the competence of such entrants to our bar.

Since then, the trend toward admission by motion has continued. According to a recent report by the American Bar Association Commission on Ethics, 40 jurisdictions now permit admission by motion. New Jersey, California and Florida are prominent holdouts. The ABA Commission has urged the prerequisite time for admission on motion be reduced so that one need only "have been primarily engaged in the active practice of law in one or more states, territories or the District of Columbia" for three rather than five of seven "years immediately preceding the date upon which the application is filed."

New Jersey's ban on admission by motion may not be able to withstand the test of time. The ABA Commission report presents substantial evidence that demonstrates that the practice of admission by motion has not resulted in harm to the profession or to the administration of justice and service to clients:
"[M]ore than 65,000 lawyers have used the procedure in the last ten years. The Commission also found that there is no evidence that lawyers admitted by motion are more likely to be subject to discipline, disciplinary complaints, or malpractice suits than lawyers admitted through more traditional procedures. The Commission sought information in this regard from lawyer disciplinary counsel, and responses revealed that the admission by motion process has produced no discernible risks to clients or the public. It also has enabled lawyers to relocate with greater ease and given clients more freedom to select their lawyers."

Given the substantial experience gained by other states in the past decade, we urge our Supreme Court to study that experience and to ask whether the time has not come for admission by motion in New Jersey.