English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It has been over seven years since the California Supreme Court thrust the thorny issues associated with multijurisdictional legal practice onto the American Bar’s agenda with its decision in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The Birbrower court held that a New York law firm, none of whose attorneys were admitted to practice law in California, committed the unauthorized practice of law by advising a California corporation in an impending California arbitration. Most troubling from a practitioner’s perspective was the court’s suggestion that an attorney might practice law “in California,” and thereby commit the unauthorized practice of law there, by “virtually” entering the state through telephone, fax, or e-mail. The Birbrower decision generated a great deal of anxiety among American lawyers and prompted the American Bar Association to create a Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice (“MJP Commission”). The MJP Commission was formed in July 2000, with a mandate to report on the state of multijurisdictional practice in the United States and to make recommendations that would facilitate that practice in the public interest.

university of pittsburgh law review

Will the General Agreement on Trade in Services Necessitate Federal Involvement in Lawyer Regulation? Some Constitutional Implications of Regulating the Global Lawyer