Dear Readers:

The last article in our newsletter this week deals with an issue we’ve barely covered in the nine+ years we’ve been online. It involves the ability of immigration lawyers to maintain national practices. The article involves a Texas-based immigration lawyer who relocated her immigration practice from New York. The lawyer in the case maintained a New York license, but the Texas Bar targeted her for the unauthorized practice of law in the state. We’re happy to report that Texas backed down and the lawyer won her fight.

It is probably tougher for a lawyer licensed in one US state to practice in another than a lawyer in one European Union country to practice in another. Each state is charged with licensing the practice of law in the US and, even though the laws and legal procedures don’t vary dramatically from state to state, many states make it very difficult to relocate one’s practice. The ostensible reason for these restrictions is to protect consumers from lawyers who are not familiar with the laws of a particular state.

The problem for immigration lawyers is that there are no state immigration laws. The US Constitution states specifically that only Congress can regulate immigration to the US. So the argument that immigration lawyers need to be highly familiar with state laws is somewhat tenuous. The US Supreme Court understood this and held 40 years ago that lawyers engaged in federal practice only need to satisfy the federal agencies in front of which they are satisfying that they are qualified practice.

In the case of immigration lawyers, the INS/BCIS and the Board of Immigration Appeals have specific rules for lawyers seeking to practice immigration law. Those agencies are best suited to protect consumers because they are the agencies that administer the immigration system. Those agencies happen to require that a lawyer at least be licensed in one state thus assuring that consumers also have the ability to register complaints with the state bar where the lawyer is licensed.

Consumers benefit from immigration lawyers practicing nationally. First, consumers living in a state without an expert in a particular area of immigration law have the ability to get help from a national expert rather than from someone in their state who may not know the subject as well. For example, I have a niche practice assisting physicians seeking waivers of their J-1 home residency requirement. There are only a small number of immigration lawyers in the US with substantial experience in this area and it is more common for clients to seek out of state lawyers than local ones. Second, national competition empowers consumers by forcing lawyers to be more competitive in their fees and level of service.  

We think the restrictions on multijurisdictional practices for immigration lawyers are more about protecting a state’s lawyers from competition than about protecting consumers. There are other states seeking to go down the same path as Texas. Fortunately, Texas backed down. Hopefully, that will signal other states to do the same.

We also report the rest of the news this week on immigration including a short ABCs of Immigration article on the new F-3 and M-3 visas for commuting students from Canada and Mexico.

In firm news, I will be moderating a series of immigration telephone seminars conducted by ILW.com. The series is entitled “Immigration for the Spirit, Body and Soul: Entertainers/Artists/Athletes, Chefs/Cooks/Hospitality Workers, and Religious Workers.” The first program will take place on August 27^th and will cover sports and entertainment immigration. You can sign up for the program by going to www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2003.shtm.

Finally, as always, we remind readers that we're lawyers who make our living representing immigration clients. We would love to discuss becoming your law firm. Just go to http://www.visalaw.com/intake.html to request an appointment or call us at 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455.

Regards,

Greg Siskind