Legal Counsel California

(4) Practice law exclusively for one qualified facility, except that, while practising under this rule, the attorney may provide pro bono services through eligible legal aid agencies; A registered in-house lawyer must renew his or her registration each year. There is no limit to the number of years in-house counsel can register under this rule. Under this rule, registered in-house counsel may only work as long as they are employed by the same qualified entity that made the statement in support of their application. If a lawyer practicing as a licensed in-house attorney leaves or changes the employer`s employment, they must notify the California State Bar within 30 days. If, under this rule, a lawyer wishes to work for a new employer, he or she must first register as an in-house lawyer for that employer. (3) submit to the California Attorney General`s Office a statement signed by the attorney accepting that he or she will be placed under the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court of California and the Office of the District Attorney of California and confirming that he or she will be registered as in-house counsel in California during the period he or she is registered as in-house counsel in California; will not practise in California other than on behalf of the qualified institution; Unless supervised, a registered in-house counsel may provide pro bono services through an eligible legal aid organization; and (1) registration as in-house legal counsel; submit an application on behalf of the eligible entity; file a character declaration petition with the California State Bar; and Article 9.9.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. legislation on the taking of lawyers` fingerprints; ABA Model Rule 5.5(d) generally allows in-house counsel to provide limited legal services through the company`s out-of-state office without engaging in unauthorized legal practice, but notes that states may require business consultants to obtain a special license. See ABA Model Rule 5.5 cmt. 17. Since most states have special licenses for in-house counsel, lawyers are well advised to familiarize themselves with and comply with these licensing requirements in any state where the company has an office or employees in order to avoid problems as to whether the individual is engaged in the unauthorized legal practice and whether solicitor-client privilege applies. The California State Bar may set reasonable filing fees as well as initial and annual registration fees payable by registered in-house attorneys. In Scranton Prods., Inc. v.

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2016) 2016 WL 3193482, the Company`s in-house counsel, was fully licensed to practice in California, but was not duly licensed under the Pennsylvania Limited In-House Counsel license and was not a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. However, for part of his job, he regularly worked from an office in Pennsylvania. The court ruled that his communications with the company were nevertheless protected by solicitor-client privilege because he was a member of the Bar Association and had been admitted to practice in a jurisdiction. It distinguished cases where it was found that communication with lawyers who were not admitted as lawyers in any jurisdiction was not privileged. (1) “Eligible Institution” means a corporation, partnership, association or other legal entity, including its subsidiaries and organizational affiliates, that has an office in California. Neither a government agency nor an entity providing legal services to others can be a qualified institution within the meaning of this rule.

A qualified institution must: A recent statement by the Attorney General of California (“AG”) that only a licensed attorney can legally represent another in a California administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act is a good reminder to in-house attorneys to be aware of California`s licensing requirements. These requirements apply to anyone who “practices law” in California, whether because a non-state business entity has a facility in California or because the attorney has moved to California from another state and is not yet licensed in California. Not only can this limit that lawyer`s ability to represent the company in judicial and administrative proceedings, but it can also affect the availability of valuable solicitor-client privilege protections. In addition, unauthorized practice of the lawyer is an administrative offense according to Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126.5. The practice of law “in California” requires sufficient contact with the California client to make the type of legal service a clear legal representation. The main investigation is whether the unlicensed attorney engaged in sufficient activities in the state or established an ongoing relationship with the California client that included legal duties and obligations. In Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.

2010) 271 F.R.D. 58, in the discovery trial in a trademark dispute, Guess`s opposing counsel? challenged Gucci`s assertion of solicitor-client privilege with respect to communications with and from its in-house counsel, who had a law degree and a member of the California Bar Association, but had an “inactive” status. The federal judge sided with Guess and concluded that Gucci`s communications with this in-house lawyer were not privileged and therefore should be disclosed. After Gucci`s investigation confirmed his lawyer`s status as an inactive bar association, he was fired. Fortunately for Gucci, the federal district court did not follow the magistrate`s order in this case. The court justified this by stating that Gucci had proven its well-founded belief that its lawyer was a lawyer at the time of the communication. The evidence included the fact that Gucci knew, when it hired him, that he had a law degree, that he had been hired to do legal work and that he had competently done so throughout his employment at Gucci, that Gucci had paid his California membership fees throughout his employment, and that six current and former executives and Gucci`s outside counsel had made statements. in which they explained that they all considered him a lawyer. Gucci America, Inc. v Guess?, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 3 January 2011) No.

09 Civ. 4373(SAS), 2011 WL 9375. This newsletter is provided for educational purposes and general information on current legal issues, and not as specific legal advice. The publication of this newsletter does not constitute a client relationship and should not replace the competent legal advice of a licensed professional lawyer.