A recent rule change permits in-house counsel who are not admitted in New York (but are registered under the in-house counsel rule) to do pro-bono work in New York. Chief Judge Lippman discusses the rationale for the rule change in today's New York Law Journal. From the article:
There is a growing recognition around the nation that in-house lawyers are qualified and willing to contribute pro bono service and should be allowed to assist the poor with their legal skills even though they are licensed out-of-state.
Of course, anything that could help to close the justice gap is a positive step. But I find this rule change interesting for another reason. Can it be seen as a small step towards breaking down barriers to multi-jurisdictional practice? If so, is the rationale articulated in the article consistent with the traditional (and in my view overly-restrictive) view of MJP? New York has not even adopted ABA Rule 5.5(c), which would permit out-of-state lawyers to practice law in New York on a temporary basis.
If we really believe that out-of-state lawyers are not competent to provide legal services in New York, why are they competent to serve poor clients? And if they are competent, why should MJP be limited to pro-bono practice?