Top Law Schools

The rule is that states can't discriminate against out of state residents unless the discrimination satisfies strict scrutiny. So my question is: what is the governmental compelling interest to prohibit non-residents attorneys to practice law in a state where they are not licensed?

States don't prohibit out of state people from practicing in state. They just require that you pass their bar. I can live in NY and practice in CA as long as I pass the CA bar (just like in-state residents have to do)

estefanchanning wrote:States don't prohibit out of state people from practicing in state. They just require that you pass their bar. I can live in NY and practice in CA as long as I pass the CA bar (just like in-state residents have to do)

So I guess it's more of an Equal Protection issue and, as practicing law is not a fundamental right, rational basis will apply. Right?

Just curiosity, not trying to advocate anything here btw.

Nightcrawler wrote:

estefanchanning wrote:States don't prohibit out of state people from practicing in state. They just require that you pass their bar. I can live in NY and practice in CA as long as I pass the CA bar (just like in-state residents have to do)

So I guess it's more of an Equal Protection issue and, as practicing law is not a fundamental right, rational basis will apply. Right?

Just curiosity, not trying to advocate anything here btw.

Not an equal protection issue either. The law doesn't discriminate against certain classes of people. It applies equally to everyone. Your best argument would maybe be substantive due process. But even then, practicing the law is not a fundamental right, and therefore RBT would apply.

estefanchanning wrote:

Nightcrawler wrote:

estefanchanning wrote:States don't prohibit out of state people from practicing in state. They just require that you pass their bar. I can live in NY and practice in CA as long as I pass the CA bar (just like in-state residents have to do)

So I guess it's more of an Equal Protection issue and, as practicing law is not a fundamental right, rational basis will apply. Right?

Just curiosity, not trying to advocate anything here btw.

Not an equal protection issue either. The law doesn't discriminate against certain classes of people. It applies equally to everyone. Your best argument would maybe be substantive due process. But even then, practicing the law is not a fundamental right, and therefore RBT would apply.

Makes sense, thanks!