Rules regulating the authorized practice of law are based on outdated concepts. We all agree that lawyers should be competent and accountable professionals who follow the rules of practice, but the idea that your client's representational needs must be limited, to retention or employment of lawyers who hold a plenary license in each of the relevant jurisdictions in which the client has business, is an anachronism that demands reform.

ACC fights to help regulators across jurisdictions understand how to authorize the cross-border practice of competent lawyers who are in good standing in their "home" jurisdictions as they represent their clients in an increasingly borderless (and even multinational) practice environment.

Focus Documents

ACC Comment Letter, Re: ABA Model Rule for Registration of In-House

ACC Policy Statement Download PDF 2007

Chairman’s Message: Operating Without a License?

ACC DOcket Article Download PDF July 2007

You spend time in one of your company’s branch offices in another state and, since it’s your job as in-house counsel, you dispense legal advice as needed. It’s a typical situation for many ACC members, but are we breaking the law?

Morrison v. Board of Law Examiners, Brief of ACC, U.S. S. Ct., 10/31/06

amicus brief Download PDF October 2006

ACC argues that the current admission on motion system is unnecessarily restrictive and does not accommodate the realities of modern business practices or the increasing mobility of lawyers serving corporate clients. The rules also limit the ability of companies working in multiple jurisdictions to use the counsel of their choosing in all the jurisdictions in which they do business.