“The more things change, the more they stay the same” is a phrase we have all heard. Again and again and again. Originally penned in 1849 by French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, it remains as valid today as it was nearly 175 years ago. It applies to life, and to the law. This column will address two recent situations, one relating to multijurisdictional practice in New Jersey and the other to bank defaults and IOLTA, both of which raise questions we have heard before. Thankfully, there are some answers to the IOLTA concerns. With regard to New Jersey, if anything, the problems have not changed. Let’s start with the Garden State.

Multijurisdictional Practice Remains a ‘Trap’ for Lawyers Not Licensed in New Jersey

My April 2013 column, “Technical Advances Aside, NJ Remains a Tough Place for Out-of-State Lawyers,” focused on bona fide offices and multijurisdictional practice. While the issue of bona fide offices has not been on many radars, a recent opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s committee on the unauthorized practice of law (CUPL) has brought the latter issue to the fore and generated much criticism, at least from ethics commentators and lawyers not licensed in the state.