In Re: Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1

The State Bar of Georgia's Formal Advisory Opinion Board was asked to address a growing situation: lawyers licensed in other states or countries who move to Georgia but keep working remotely for clients and matters with no connection to Georgia at all. The Board drafted an opinion on whether this violates Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5, which restricts non-Georgia lawyers from practicing law 'in Georgia.' After a public comment process, the Board approved the opinion and the State Bar asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review it, as the rules require for such opinions to bind the whole Bar. The court reviewed the record and the State Bar's brief and approved Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1. The opinion concludes that a lawyer who lives in Georgia but only serves clients and matters unconnected to Georgia is not practicing law 'in Georgia,' so long as the lawyer does not claim to be Georgia-licensed, keeps the Georgia location from becoming generally known, and corrects any public misunderstanding about licensure.

The court approved Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1, holding that a lawyer licensed elsewhere who lives in Georgia and provides remote legal services unconnected to Georgia does not violate Rule 5.5's restrictions on practicing law 'in Georgia,' provided the lawyer does not misrepresent being licensed in Georgia, keeps the Georgia location from becoming generally known, and corrects any misunderstanding about licensure.

The ruling gives clear guidance to the growing number of remote-work lawyers who live in Georgia but are licensed elsewhere, letting them stay in Georgia without running afoul of unauthorized practice rules, provided they avoid advertising their location or claiming Georgia licensure.

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 22-1 approved

1. The Formal Advisory Opinion Board examined Rule 5.5, Georgia's rule limiting when lawyers licensed elsewhere ('Domestic' or 'Foreign' Lawyers) may provide legal services 'in Georgia,' and noted the rule does not define what counts as providing services 'in Georgia.'
2. Because the hypothetical lawyer's remote work has no connection to Georgia beyond physical location (no Georgia clients, law, property, or affiliated offices), the Board concluded such work is not the provision of services 'in Georgia,' so Rule 5.5's specific limits on in-Georgia practice do not apply.
3. The Board then considered Rule 5.5's separate ban on establishing 'an office or other systematic and continuous presence' for practicing law in a state where the lawyer isn't licensed, reasoning that this rule exists to prevent the public from being misled about a lawyer's licensure.
4. The Board concluded that a lawyer can avoid creating a misleading systematic presence by not claiming Georgia licensure, hiding the Georgia location from advertising and public view, and correcting any misunderstanding, thereby negating the risk of public confusion even if the lawyer works from Georgia continuously.
5. The Board found support in advisory opinions from Florida, Utah, and New Jersey reaching similar conclusions under their own versions of Rule 5.5, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, after reviewing the record and the State Bar's brief, approved the opinion as drafted.

• remote work lawyers
• unauthorized practice of law
• State Bar ethics opinion
• Rule 5.5
• attorney licensure