In comments submitted October 31st to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, ACC strongly supports proposed rules for the multijurisdictional practice (MJP) of in-house counsel, which largely follow the ABA Model Rules for MJP. However, ACC identifies two areas of concern … Continue reading →

ACC and its Iowa Chapter submitted comments on October 14th to the Iowa Supreme Court which generally support proposed reforms to registration rules for in-house counsel, but requesting improvements to the proposals which inadvertently identify in-house counsel as “second-class citizens … Continue reading →

The Supreme Court of Tennessee adopted, with minor changes, ABA Model Rules 5.5 and 8.5, which govern the multijurisdictional practice of law (MJP) and facilitate the cross-border practices of lawyers admitted in one US jurisdiction, but not in the state … Continue reading →

The Illinois Supreme Court adopted, without changes, ABA Model Rules 5.5 and 8.5, which govern the multijurisdictional practice of law (MJP) and facilitate the cross-border practices of lawyers admitted in one US jurisdiction, but not in the state that’s adopting … Continue reading →

ACC Northeast Chapter Comments to Maine Supreme Judicial Court

ACC In-house Counsel Rule Comment Letter, Wisconsin

ACC Comments to Connecticut Supreme Court on on Revisions to Multijurisdiction Practice

ACC Comments to Ohio Supreme Court Support Multijurisdictional Practice Reforms

ACC San Diego Chapter Comments to California Sate Bar Regarding Registered In-house Counsel

ACC MJP Comment Letter, Wisconsin