A fascinating case in New York reached an unexpected (though perhaps not final) point the other day when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a law that requires New York-licensed lawyers who have a primary office elsewhere to have actual, physical offices in New York if they want to practice there. Ekaterina Schoenefeld, the New Jersey lawyer also licensed in New York who had brought the challenge, has asked for en banc review and has vowed to continue her fight as far as she can. Good luck to her.

Schoenefeld had challenged the law under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, claiming that the law favored resident New York attorneys, who did not have a physical office requirement, over those like her, who wished to practice from across the border. I am far from a constitutional maven, and, thus, really cannot comment on the wisdom of her choice of case strategy, but the whole thing makes little sense from a practical point of view.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]