Proposal to adopt Ethics 20/20 Revisions in Tennessee Put Out For Public Comment

Back in August 2012, the ABA House of Delegates approved revisions to the ABA Model Rules proposed by the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission.  Very few of the proposed revisions included in the ABA Ethics 20/20 package are earth-shaking revisions, as many of them only involve change to language in the Comment accompanying certain rules.

The overall bent of the revisions, however, are to address aspects of the impact that technology has on modern law practice, highlight for lawyers their duty to, at the very least, keep abreast of and be competent regarding the types of technologies they use in their practice, and address a few other issues with good guidance regarding how aspects of globalization and the increased use of outsourcing interact with our ethical obligations.

More than twenty-five states have now adopted all or significant parts of the Ethics 20/20 package of changes.  Most recently Washington state has done this, with its revisions to become effective September 1, 2016.  Here in Tennessee, the TBA has filed a petition proposing adoption of almost all of those rule changes, and our Court has now put the TBA petition out for public comment with a November 17, 2016 comment deadline.  (There is also an Errata that the TBA put out to fix a redlining error made by the stupid Chair of the TBA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility when it was pointed out that we’d forgotten to pick up some changes to our RPC 5.5 that went into effect back in January 1, 2016.)

In my opinion, the most important, and most helpful, part of the Ethics 20/20 revisions takes place in RPC 1.6 by explicitly acknowledging the need to reconcile the duty of confidentiality with the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and the fact that, in reality, this means that lawyers need to be able to disclose some otherwise confidential information when looking at moving law firms or when firms are looking at proposed mergers in order to make sure to identify and address potential conflicts of interest under RPC 1.7.

The Tennessee proposed revisions would pick that change up.  Thus, if adopted, like the ABA Model, our RPC 1.6(b)(6) would now provide an exception to RPC 1.6(a) confidentilaity:

(6) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.

If adopted, the TBA’s proposed revisions would also move the language about duties of safeguarding confidential information from the Comment to RPC 1.6 up into the black-letter of the rule itself.  Although our version of that rule would be place into a new RPC 1.6(d), instead of Rule 1.6(c) as in the ABA Model Rules because we already have a RPC 1.6(c) that deviates from the ABA Model Rules approach by imposing certain duties of mandatory disclosure of confidential information.

What we do not propose to pick up, however, are certain aspects of the Ethics 20/20 changes that were made to ABA Model Rule 4.4.  This is because, in Tennessee, we have a more robustly detailed version of  the rule that specifically addresses the duties of lawyers when they receive confidential information that they know or should reasonably know was inadvertently transmitted to them or that they know or should reasonably know was provided to them by someone not authorized to have the information in the first place.

Based on the November 2016 comment deadline, there is reason to be hopeful that these proposed revisions might become effective in Tennessee as early as January 1, 2017.  But, stay tuned.

You either die a hero or live long enough to be the villain

So this intrepid blogger is on vacation and this post and perhaps one other this week will have been pre-written and scheduled for publication.  So here’s hoping nothing has transpired in the world to make this seem tone-deaf.

Samson Habte, an excellent reporter with the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct, was kind enough to speak with me and use a few quotes of mine in a well-done piece he wrote last week on the latest appellate court ruling evaluating the validity of the in-firm privilege.  This ruling is particularly important because it comes out of the New York, which was where the original case that created the fiduciary duty exception to the privilege (outside of the context of law firms) arose which then influenced that In re Sunrise case.

You can read the full article here at this link.  (The fine folks over at The Law for Lawyers Today have also written a good blogpost recently on the NY ruling here.)

I have been following this issue for many years, including dating back to when I was fortunate enough to be one of the original co-chairs of the ABA Firm Counsel Project.  One of the very first roundtable sessions that now-defunct group organized focused on the state of play of the privilege for designated in-house counsel in law firms.  Back then, in the late years of the first decade of the 2000s, we were still in the midst of a trend of bad rulings on the issue.

One of the topics of discussion that the reporter and I covered and that didn’t quite make it into the article is what we discussed right after my “wrongheaded” quote.  I am, generally speaking, a huge fan of the Association of Corporate Counsel.  That organization, the ACC, has played a very significant role in protecting the attorney-client privilege from erosion in the context of government investigations and the minefield that has been created over the years by the Department of Justice and a series of memoranda over the years that would be used as an attack on the privilege in the corporate context by laying the groundwork for a position that corporate entities in investigations needed to roll over and agree to waive the attorney-client privilege if they wanted to get any credit for cooperation.

So, to a large extent that is the context of my remarks both as to “wrongheaded”-ness and the statement about how “disappointing” it would be for the ACC to start pushing for its in-house counsel to demand in engagement agreements that law firms agree in advance to waive their right to an in-firm privilege if they want to be retained.

If the ACC follows through with that course of action, we will find ourselves in a world where one of the biggest champions of the attorney-client privilege and a stalwart defender against the powerful Justice Department over the years has now become that what it used to fight against — a powerful entity applying coercive pressure for a purpose that would only undermine the privilege.

Ironic, yes, but also a truly disappointing turn of events.

Friday follow up: In-house counsel amnesty deadline just a week away

In the very early days of this aspiring little blog, I wrote repeatedly about a number of proposed, and ultimately adopted, changes to Tennessee’s admissions and licensing rule, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 7.  Included among the implemented changes was one last chance at amnesty for lawyers working in Tennessee as in-house counsel but who were not properly licensed here.

The purpose of today’s post is simply in the nature of a public service announcement for any lawyers working as in-house counsel in Tennessee but who still may not have gotten their licensing house in order.  The deadline for turning in your paperwork for a registration license in Tennessee is July 1, 2016.  Even though time is now exceedingly tight, the paperwork to complete is still relatively easy.  You can access it over at the Board of Law Examiners website.

Over the years, I have represented a number of in-house lawyers that have had to deal with problems arising from not being properly licensed in Tennessee, and it really is important to stress that this last opportunity to have any such sins of the past washed away by getting properly registered before the deadline is really not one to be missed.

If you happen to be reading this and know of any in-house counsel in Tennessee, you might pass the link to this post along so that they can make sure they and all of their colleagues know of this opportunity to get squared away.  If you don’t want to just take my thoughts on this at face value, you can also go read more about the situation at the Administrative Office of the Courts website.

Independence of professional judgment, and other thoughts spurred by the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services

April 2016 has brought another iteration of a seemingly, endless, (yet kind of potentially pointless unless you think the politics of the situation will somehow play out differently from the past) debate: whether some entity within the ABA is attempting to usher into reality a world in which people other than lawyers will be allowed to have ownership interests in law firms?

The raising of the mere possibility of outside investment in law firms by people who are not lawyers incites debate and inflames passion among lawyers immediately.  Not all lawyers of course.  Some just go to work, represent their clients, get stuff done, go home, lather, rinse & repeat.  But lawyers who are active in state bar associations certainly get pretty revved up, as do many ethics nerds like me.

The ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services put out an issues paper on April 8, 2016 for comment that has stirred this topic up again.  You can read it here.  The deadline for comments (if you are so inclined) is tomorrow.  About a week before putting out the paper discussing Alternative Business Structures, the same Commission put out an issues paper focused on the world of “unregulated” entities operating as legal service providers.  That issues paper also makes for interesting reading and you can get it here.

It should be no surprise that these two topics are being addressed in close proximity by the ABA Commission because they are relatively intertwined in the minds of many people.  (And, for clarity, I have put “unregulated” in quotes because what the ABA Commission means when it uses that term is not regulated by courts in the way that lawyers practicing law are regulated.  Entities that provide legal services but that are owned and operated by people other than lawyers are, of course, regulated to some extent by agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission.)

Unlike the comment deadline on the Alternative Business Structures paper, the comment deadline on the paper regarding what to do about unregulated LSPs has passed.  I’ve spent a bit of time reading some but not all of the comments, and you can find links to all of the comments here.

For those who don’t want to go read all of the original source material, I think a fair description/takeaway/summary of the two ABA issues papers is:

  1.  The ABA Commission is likely thinking pretty strongly about trying to propose that courts, through entity regulation and using the Model Regulatory Objectives approved by the ABA House of Delegates in Resolution 105, attempt to exert some control over entities such as Legal Zoom and Avvo and others that provide services that would certainly be treated as the practice of law if performed by a lawyer.
  2. The ABA Commission is certainly trying to spur another conversation about whether business models presently prohibited because of RPC 5.4 throughout the U.S. (other than Washington, D.C.) might be a worthwhile endeavor.  And, the Commission’s issues paper has managed to lay out the potential benefits and risks of doing so in a pretty fair, even-handed manner.

For those that cannot remember off the top of their head, ABA Model Rule 5.4 is the ethics rule which (a) generally prevents lawyers from sharing fees with those who are not lawyers; (b) prohibits lawyers from being in partnerships with nonlawyers if any of the partnership’s activities involve the practice of law; (c) mandates that a lawyer who is letting someone other than their client pay them cannot let that other person “direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services,” and (d) prevents lawyers from practicing law in certain business entity forms if a nonlawyer has an ownership interest or serves in certain roles.   [N.B. – sorry, I tried.  Once I started talking about this specific rule, “nonlawyer” as a term became unavoidable.]

I’m not sure that my thoughts on these issues are fully-baked as of yet, but I think that each of the following six positions are reasonable ones to have:

  1.  Maintaining independence of professional judgment is a core principle of the legal profession, but that doesn’t mean that the conditions in which lawyers work have to be sanitized so as to try to free lawyers from temptations.  We already allow quite a few things under the ethics rules that can create temptations for lawyers to allow others to control or interfere with their professional judgment or that, at minimum, place severe negative economic pressure on the exercise of independent professional judgment.  We let lawyers be hired by, and paid by, insurance companies for the purpose of representing policyholders.  Those insurance companies establish guidelines for how those lawyers are supposed to go about handling the litigation; they scrutinize and reject bills if the right billing codes are not used by the lawyers; and they ultimately place the pressure on lawyers who think the guidelines and restrictions go too far to exercise their independent professional judgment to do what is necessary to represent the client’s interests even if it sometimes means they end up not getting paid for time and effort that needed to be done.  Our ethics rules have no problem with lawyers being employed as in-house counsel even though they are constantly at risk of having their employer (and only client) potentially pressure them to set aside their professional judgment and do things that help drive profits.  Our ethics rules have long allowed lawyers to handle cases on a contingent fee basis.  Our ethics rules do not prohibit law firms from imposing requirements on how many billable hours must be logged to stay employed. Sometimes the strongest principles are those that survive despite temptations.
  2. Allowing people other than lawyers to invest in law firms or otherwise be owners or stakeholders in law firms is not going to increase access to justice among those who cannot afford legal services.  It’s just not, and people should just stop already with the effort to claim that the reason it should be considered is because of how it will help as an access to justice initiative.
  3. Expanding on the Washington, D.C. approach to allow people other than lawyers to be partners in law firms or to have a minority ownership interest in the firm as long as they agree to abide by the lawyer ethics rules will neither create Armageddon, nor create any more economic pressure on lawyers than already exists from items discussed in point #1.
  4. If you aren’t a lawyer, there is a fairly compelling logic to the notion that the limit of regulation that should be imposed by courts or by lawyers as officers of courts on “unregulated” LSPs should be that such entities and the people involved with them cannot hold themselves out as if they were a lawyer.
  5. On the other hand, if you are a lawyer, it is reasonable to believe that the restriction identified in #4 alone is not sufficient.  There has to be some line over which LSPs cannot cross.  This is true if for no other reason than that the regulations lawyers have to endure are significantly more restrictive than the regulations imposed by agencies like the FTC and similar state regulatory agencies, and those more restrictive regulations render competition in certain legal services entirely unfair.
  6. It is silly for RPC 5.4(d)(2) to only allow someone who is not a lawyer to be an officer or have a position of similar responsibility (i.e. Chief Marketing Officer, or CFO, or COO) in a law firm if the law firm is organized as a corporation.  I cannot think of any legitimate reason that a law firm organized as a PLLC or an LLP can’t have an accountant serving as CFO but a law firm organized as a Professional Corporation should.  (And, for this last thought I owe Lynda Shely thanks for reminding me while we were in Austin that the rule actually says this.)

What do you think?  Are any of these six positions above not reasonable ones to have?  I almost never solicit input in the comments, but have at me if I’ve lost the plot.

 

 

Tennessee Supreme Court takes long-awaited action to smooth admissions problems

Yesterday, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an order that addresses a variety of issues I have written about on a number of prior occasions.  You can take in the entire order setting out all of the new provisions here.  In addition to making a spot change to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 6 and a revision to RPC 5.5(d), it replaces Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7 in its entirety.

In almost all respects, the Court’s action offers the hoped for outcomes on a variety of issues plaguing Tennessee’s admission system for lawyers licensed in other jurisdictions.  The contents of the new rule becomes effective in just 11 days, on January 1, 2016.

As to comity admission, the Court has removed the requirement it had added into Section 5.01 that conditioned eligibility for comity admission upon having both applied for it, and being approved for it, before moving to Tennessee to be employed as a lawyer.  Effective January 1, 2016, Section 5.01 will no longer say anything along those lines (and in fact does not even explicitly require the application be submitted before arrival in Tennessee).

The Court also had adopted a robust practice pending admission provision that will permit applicants awaiting a ruling on their comity application to practice law in Tennessee for up to 365 days.  The provision is largely patterned after the ABA Model provision on the topic and requires the applicant to “associate[] with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in Tennessee.”

With respect to in-house counsel registration, the order provides a second round of amnesty so that any lawyers, currently employed as in-house counsel in Tennessee but who are not licensed here and did not get properly registered before now, can have any prior sins in this respect forgiven as long as they get an in-house counsel registration application filed within 180 days from January 1, 2016 (June 30, 2016).  Accompanying this change is a revision to RPC 5.5(d) to add a (3) that more prominently explains the repercussions in the future for any in-house counsel who fails to make timely advantage of this amnesty (and for any in-house counsel who may arrive in Tennessee in the future and miss the 180-day registration deadline).  The Court also took this opportunity to make explicit what was previously just strongly implied — that an in-house counsel who gets their application in timely (i.e. on day 175 for example, need not worry that the work they do during days 1-174 is somehow UPL.

The Court also took favorable action on a request made to make it easier for the spouses of those in military service to become admitted in Tennessee.  The Court took something of a compromise position between a proposal made by military spouses and a counter-proposal offered by the TBA – offering a 2-year initial license period with the ability to renew for additional 1-year periods provided the initial requirements for obtaining the license remain in place.

Additionally, and importantly, for a number of lawyers with comity applications that have been pending or on hold or otherwise stuck in the system while these long discussed changes have been under consideration, the Court has adopted a specific provision addressing the transition period from the old rule to the new rule as to comity admissions and that reads as follows:

(i)  Transitional Provision.  From January 1, 2016, and continuing through December 31, 2016, the Board is authorized to exercise its discretion in adjudicating pending applications for comity admission that have not been finally ruled upon as of the effective date (January 1, 2016) of this revised Rule.  Such discretion includes waiving or altering time periods or otherwise varying the provisions for admission by comity, and the Board shall tailor such discretion toward granting the applicant’s application for comity admission as long as the Board otherwise reaches the conclusion that the lawyer possesses the character and fitness to practice law in this jurisdiction.

While the transitional provision is very helpful, it does not go quite as far as what was proposed by the TBA.  The TBA had sought for the Court to adopt language that would have read as follows:

From and after [January 1, 2016] and continuing until [December 31, 2016], the Court specifically directs the Board of Law Examiners to use discretion in adjudicating pending applications that have not been finally ruled upon, including waiving or altering time periods or otherwise varying provisions, to tailor such discretion toward granting the applicant’s application for comity admission as long as the Board otherwise reaches the conclusion that the lawyer possesses the character and fitness to practice law in this jurisdiction.

The difference likely does not affect a horde of folks but there may be lawyers out there who had held off filing comity applications while awaiting a ruling who now may wonder whether they must apply in the next ten days to take full advantage of these changes.  It also may be less than clear whether any lawyers with currently pending comity applications but who already have offices in Tennessee will be permitted to take full advantage of the practice pending admission provision because of the specific language of the transition provision.  Thus, there may be situations out there that will still fall within some gaps in the working of the rule moving forward.  (There also are some grounds to criticize other aspects of the rules requirements on public policy grounds — questions such as whether the change in the rule to now require someone who went to law school in a foreign country but wishes to sit for the Tennessee Bar exam has to first obtain an LLM in the United States are too restrictive.)

But, on the whole, there can be no question that the entry of the Court’s order yesterday is a good outcome.

Lawyer ethics rules are public policy statements. Of course they are.

There is a lot of activity that can take place at the intersection of the lawyer ethics rules and public policy.  There can be issues that aren’t addressed by lawyer ethics rules (or at least not fully addressed) but that are addressed as a matter of state public policy.  What there really can’t be though are issues that are addressed by a state’s lawyer ethics rules but that are not addressed by state public policy.  At least, there can’t be in a state where the attorney ethics rules have been adopted as part of a court rule.

This is because, generally speaking, court rules are elevated in dignity to the equivalent of statutes.  Thus, using Tennessee as an example, the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, enshrined as they are in Rule 8 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules, establish the public policy of our state on the issues they address.  Our Tennessee Supreme Court made this point plain in 2002.  Crews v. Buckman Labs, 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) was an important decision on both questions of lawyer ethics and employment law where the Court explained that a lawyer claiming to have been fired for exercising her ethical duty to report another lawyer’s misconduct could challenge the employment action as an unlawful termination in violation of state public policy.

This point — that attorney ethics rules are state public policy — was a bit lost on one of the litigants in a piece of litigation in federal court in Virginia arising from a dispute among former law partners governed by the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  The point was not lost on the district judge presiding over the litigation, however.

The Moskowitz v. Jacobson Holman, PLLC litigation came about after a lawyer departed his law firm for greener pastures.  The firm, exercising its authority under its operating agreement, denied the lawyer 50% of his equity interest on departure because he took some clients with him when he left.  In response to a counterclaim from the firm, the departed lawyer argued that the provision in the operating agreement allowing such forfeiture violated RPC 5.6 and was void.  On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court ruled that if it is shown that RPC 5.6 was violated, then no additional showing would be required to find that aspect of the contract to be unenforceable.  (Though the suit was filed in Virginia federal court, the D.C. ethics rules applied to the firm’s agreement.)

There are, of course, other contexts where this kind of argument about public policy made by the law firm could be viable.  For example, courts are split about whether an agreement to share fees with a nonlawyer in violation of the attorney ethics rules can still be enforced by the nonlawyer.  Since the party seeking to enforce the terms of the contract is not a lawyer in those instances and the ethics rules do not apply to their conduct, it is not surprising to learn that some courts allow enforcement of such a contract even though the lawyer involved violated his or her ethical obligations under the relevant version of RPC 5.4(a).  In the context of an RPC 5.6 violation though, everyone involved is a lawyer and governed by the ethics rules.

To me, the closer question is the one that the court had to assume was true for purposes of resolving the judgment on the pleadings issue:  whether the kind of forfeiture provision in the law firm’s operating agreement actually violates RPC 5.6(a).

In Tennessee, our version of the rule is identical to the ABA Model Rule and provides that lawyers cannot “participate in offering or making a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement.”

Nothing in our Comment to the Rule, nor the ABA’s, elaborates on what terms short of actual restriction on practice qualify as prohibited by the rule.  At least in my state, a robust argument could be had over whether a “financial penalty” alone is something that “restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship.”  The fact that the “except” language in the dependent clause addresses a financial issue is certainly potentially persuasive evidence that this type of arrangement could be found to violate RPC 5.6(a).

Under the D.C. version of the rule, an additional paragraph exists in the Comment [numbered as Cmt. [2] in D.C.] that states:  “Restrictions, other than those concerning retirement benefits, that impose a substantial financial penalty on a lawyer who competes after leaving the firm may violate paragraph (a).” Yet, D.C.’s word choice leaves an opening.  D.C. went with “may violate” so the potential exists that you could have a provision that imposes a substantial financial penalty on a lawyer who competes after leaving the firm that would not violate RPC 5.6(a).

The TBA’s Filed Comment to the Board of Law Examiners Proposed Rule Changes

Over the last few months, I have posted on several occasions about the petition pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court seeking some significant changes to the rules in Tennessee regarding admission of attorneys to practice in a variety of contexts.  If you are new to the blog, you can get up to speed on this issue here and here.

In advance of the July 31 deadline for comments, the Tennessee Bar Association has filed a comment that is generally supportive but that, most importantly, proposes changes the Court should make before adopting that would improve upon the proposal.  You can read the comment in its entirety and the TBA’s proposed redline revisions here.

As one of the lawyers who had the honor of drafting the comment, I can tell you in summary form that the TBA’s position backs the BLE proposal to remove the barrier to comity admission that exists in the current rule as a result of the requirement that a comity application be approved before beginning employment in Tennessee and backs the BLE”s request for a new amnesty period for in-house counsel registration compliance.  The TBA also is proposing changes that would:

  • Result in a better practice pending admission rule that would be patterned after the ABA Model Rule on practice pending admission and which would, among other things, permit experienced lawyers moving to Tennessee licensed in another U.S. jurisdiction to practice for up to 365 days while waiting for approval of their comity application.
  • Result in explicit protection in the rules for the work that an in-house counsel does prior to putting in a registration application as long as the application is submitted timely within the first 180 days of employment.
  • Remove barriers to admission for military spouses who are attorneys licensed in jurisdictions other than Tennessee but in a less bulky way that would involve a renewable one-year temporary license.
  • Create a standard to be applied during a transition period in which applicants already in the pipeline who have been waiting during this uncertain period and who apply in the future while a ruling on this petition is awaited will not have strict timing issues held against them to deny admission but who will be blocked from admission only on grounds of true character and fitness concerns.

There is no set timeline for a ruling from the Court now that the deadline for comments has expired, but there are many lawyers who are hopeful that given the importance of these issues that the Court will act expeditiously.

On the military spouse admission issue, you can read the collection of separately-filed comments on that rule proposal here.  Interestingly, only one entity appears to have filed a public comment in complete opposition, the Montgomery County Bar Association, Clarksville – the city in Tennessee home to the largest military base in our state is located in Montgomery County.

More on the BLE’s petition for rule changes

This will be the first of several more in-depth entries focused on the Board of Law Examiners’ petition seeking some changes to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 7, which deals with a collection of licensing issues in Tennessee.  (This will also be one of those less frequent posts where I may not adhere strictly to my commitment to tell you what you need to know in a bite-sized portion requiring 6 minutes or fewer of your time.)

One of the two headline changes proposed in the petition is the creation of a new amnesty period for in-house counsel registration.  If adopted, Section 10.04 of Rule 7 would be amended to provide that any in-house counsel not currently licensed or properly registered in Tennessee would have another 180 days from the date the rule change is adopted to put in the proper paperwork to obtain a registration license.

Some background of note: it has now been almost 13 years since the Tennessee Supreme Court made clear that a lawyer who was working as in-house counsel for a company based in Tennessee needed to be licensed to practice law in Tennessee.  Crews v. Buckman Labs, 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002).  Despite that state of affairs, in 2009, it was known that there were many in-house counsel not in compliance and revisions to Rule 7 and to RPC 5.5 were adopted effective Jan. 1, 2010 that would permit in-house counsel licensed in another jurisdiction to obtain a registration license under which they would only be permitted to represent the company that employed them but would not have to otherwise become fully licensed.  In order to make it easier for in-house lawyers already in Tennessee to get into compliance, those folks were given 180 days from adoption of the new rule to get their paperwork in and have their past transgressions absolved.  These new rules also provided that, for in-house counsel coming to Tennessee in the future, they would have 180 days from the date they commenced their employment to get their application papers in for the in-house registration certificate.

Well, fast forward to the present day and for a variety of reasons, there are again quite a few in-house counsel in Tennessee who did not get their registration paperwork in within 180 days of commencing employment with a company in Tennessee.  Some of the most sympathetic examples are lawyers who wanted to become full members of the bar and who submitted applications to be fully admitted by comity, not realizing that such applications were likely doomed because there was no corresponding 180-day grace period for that process.

Thus, faced with this situation in which there are quite a few in-house counsel who are gainfully employed by corporations in Tennessee that very much want these people to be their lawyers, the BLE has made this proposal that would give those folks a new 180-day window to turn in registration license paperwork and have their past transgressions absolved.  I expect that this aspect of the BLE’s petition will be met with widespread support.

This proposal also contains two further things of note.  The first is the BLE’s insistence that they will make positive efforts to educate in-house counsel on this situation and about the need to get the paperwork in within 180 days.  The second is the proposal to move existing language from Comment [17] to RPC 5.5 up into the black-letter as a new RPC 5.5(d)(3).  Simultaneously, an additional sentence is proposed that would go some distance in making clear that, for in-house counsel, there really is no other choice (if sitting for the bar examination is not desirable) than to first obtain a registration license and then, if something more is desired, to seek to get full admission by comity.

Board of Law Examiners – March 12, 2015 petition to overhaul Rule 7

Depending on what type of law practice setting you work in, you may or may not be aware of the several ways in which Tennessee’s system for licensing lawyers is a bit … I believe the technical word is “broken.”

Yesterday, the Board of Law Examiners filed a petition to seek to have the Tennessee Supreme Court fix some of the issues.  I will certainly be writing more, and more extensively, about this in the near future, but among the highlights of the BLE’s proposal is the creation of an additional 180-day amnesty period for in-house corporate counsel to register and a proposal that would permit some form of practice pending admission availability for attorneys seeking comity admission though not to the robust extent under theABA Model Rule.

The BLE’s petition has not yet been put out for public comment, but when that happens, it will likely result in a substantial amount of comment and discussion.