The ABA Journal is running a story this month that is rather critical of states that have no admission by motion rule or have procedures that are more restrictive than those contained in the Model Rule.
As some readers may recall, the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 successfully proposed a modest liberalization of the Model Rule, which now allows lawyers to gain admission by motion after three, rather than five, years of practice. The Commission also successfully proposed a resolution calling for states that have not adopted the Model Rule to do so and for states that have admission by motion procedures to delete requirements (like reciprocity provisions) that are more restrictive than the Model Rule.
I offered a provocative quote for the ABA Journal article, saying that restrictions beyond those contained in the Model Rule (such as reciprocity provisions) “serve no public policy purpose. In my view they are indefensible from the standpoint of public and client protection and should be eliminated.”
Does anyone disagree? If so, why?