Ruling: "Virtual" Law Offices May Not Satisfy N.J. Ethics Regulations

Virtual law offices have received much hype in some circles as the way of the future for legal practitioners.

Some juridictions, however, maintain "brick and mortar" regulations that call the legality of such offices into question. Law.com reports today on a New Jersey decision holding that some forms of virtual offices do not comply with that state's ethical code:

In an action that could affect large numbers of New Jersey practitioners, two court regulatory committees said on Friday that "virtual offices" staffed by receptionists who are mere answering services do not satisfy New Jersey's bona fide office rule.

Virtual offices, time shares in an office building on an hourly or daily basis, are popular with lawyers who work from their homes but need someone to take their calls and a conference room to meet clients.

But these lawyers are violating Rule 1:21-1(a), the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and the Committee on Attorney Advertising said in a joint opinion, ACPE 718/CAA 41.

The rule defines a bona fide office as a place where an attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney's behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by courts,

..."A 'virtual office' cannot be a bona fide office since the attorney generally is not present during normal business hours but will only be present when he or she has reserved the space," the opinions say. "Moreover, the receptionist at a 'virtual office' does not qualify as a responsible person acting on the attorney's behalf who can answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries."

Read more: 'Virtual Offices' Aren't Bona Fide, N.J. Committees Say

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

New Jersey Court Permits Divorce of Same Sex Couple, Married in Canada

Canadian Press reports, via CTV, on a a New Jersey Superior Court's groundbreaking decison Friday, permitting the divorce of a lesbian couple that had been married in Victoria, B.C.:

TRENTON, N.J. -- Gay marriages performed elsewhere are recognized in New Jersey for the purpose of divorce, said a ruling Friday by a judge presiding over a case in which a lesbian couple married in Canada are seeking to split.

The wider implications weren't immediately clear but Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson said New Jersey has a long history of recognizing marriages that are valid where they were performed.

...The state attorney general's office had opposed the request, the first of its kind in the state, and was seeking to have the couple's marriage dissolved as if it were a civil union. Officials have not said whether the state will seek an appeal.

...Courts in a handful of states, including New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Texas, have wrestled with the question in the last few years. In most cases, judges have ruled the state would not grant the divorces because the states do not recognize same-sex marriage.

There have been a flood of recent decisions in U.S. courts regarding same-sex marriages and unions:

We wrote last week on a New York probate court's decision that recognized a Canadian same-sex marriage in the context of estate distribution.

Volokh also had two articles this week, highighting:

• a decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal holding that a denial of government employment benefits to same-sex spouses pursuant to the Defence of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denies federal recognition of state marriages to same-sex couples.
• a decision of the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division dismissing a challenge to a determination by the State's Department of Civil Service to "recognize the parties to a same-sex marriage as spouses if their marriage were valid in the jurisdiction where it was solemnized, thereby allowing such spouses of state employees access to the benefits provided under the New York State Health Insurance Program."

On the political front, the New York Times reports today that no legislation to legalize gay marriage in New York State is likely in 2009:

New York Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith said that he did not believe legislation to legalize marriage between same-sex couples had enough support to become law in New York this year.

See: No Gay Marriage Bill This Year.

- Garry J. Wise, Cancun

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG