In Re: Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1

The State Bar of Georgia's Office of the General Counsel asked its Formal Advisory Opinion Board to address a modern problem: what happens when a lawyer licensed in another state or country moves to Georgia and keeps working remotely for clients with no connection to Georgia at all, using phone, email, and video conferencing? The Board drafted an opinion, took public comments over two rounds, and ultimately approved it, then asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review it as required by Bar rules. The question was whether Georgia's Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5, which limits when out-of-state lawyers can practice law in Georgia, is violated by simply living and working remotely from Georgia. The court approved the Board's answer: such a lawyer does not violate Rule 5.5 as long as they never claim to be licensed in Georgia, take reasonable steps to keep their Georgia location from becoming publicly known, and correct any misunderstanding about their licensure.

A lawyer licensed outside Georgia does not violate Rule 5.5 by residing in Georgia and providing legal services remotely for clients with no connection to Georgia, provided the lawyer does not claim Georgia licensure, keeps the Georgia location from becoming generally known, and corrects any misunderstanding about licensure.

The ruling gives clarity to a growing number of remote-working lawyers licensed elsewhere who choose to live in Georgia, letting them stay compliant with Georgia's unauthorized practice rules without relocating their clients or practice, while still protecting the public from being misled about who is actually licensed in Georgia.

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1 approved

1. The court reviewed Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5, which restricts when lawyers not licensed in Georgia (called Domestic or Foreign Lawyers) may provide legal services 'in Georgia,' and noted the rule does not define what counts as practicing 'in' the state.
2. Because the hypothetical lawyer's remote work has no connection to any Georgia client, lawsuit, property, or organization, the Board concluded that simply being physically located in Georgia while serving out-of-state clients does not amount to providing legal services 'in Georgia' under Rule 5.5.
3. The court considered Rule 5.5's separate ban on establishing 'an office or other systematic and continuous presence' for the practice of law in Georgia without authorization, and on holding oneself out as licensed in Georgia, both meant to prevent the public from being misled.
4. The court reasoned that if the lawyer never claims Georgia licensure and takes reasonable steps to keep their Georgia location unknown to the public (such as omitting it from advertising, letterhead, or online profiles), there is no meaningful risk the public will be confused about their licensure.
5. Drawing on similar advisory opinions from Florida, Utah, and New Jersey, the court found that living in a state while doing out-of-state legal work is not the same as establishing a professional presence in that state for the practice of law.
6. Based on this reasoning, the court approved the Board's conclusion that such remote work is permissible under specified safeguards, while cautioning that lawyers whose Georgia presence becomes generally known must look to other rules and law.

• remote work lawyers
• unauthorized practice of law
• State Bar of Georgia
• Rule 5.5
• attorney licensing