ILNews

Attorneys discuss pros and cons of practicing in 2 states

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys in Indiana know that they must meet certain ongoing requirements to maintain their law licenses: CLE hours, and staying abreast of procedural changes. Why, then, would anyone want to be licensed in two states?

For Jeffry Lind, Indiana State Bar Association president, the answer is simple.

jeffrey lind Lind

“I changed firms, and the new firm had litigation work available in Illinois, and I wanted to help out, do my part, be a team player,” he said.

Lind, who passed the bar in Indiana in 1998 and was admitted on motion in Illinois in 2002, practices in Terre Haute, about 10 miles from the Indiana-Illinois border. Like many attorneys who live along Indiana’s borders, Lind is able to handle more cases thanks to his dual licensing. But he also encountered challenges when he was admitted to the Illinois Bar.

“Initially, I was the stranger in town when I went to communities in Illinois. At that time, I had practiced 14 years, so it was difficult to walk in as the stranger and as the guy who was granted no respect,” he said. Ultimately, Lind said, he enjoyed the challenge of making a name for himself again.

“I have met some great lawyers I would have never met,” he said. “It’s kind of like expanding your legal community.”

Unlike Lind, attorney Susan Kozlowski decided to take both the Indiana and Illinois bar exams right out of law school.

“I figured that was the point in time when I would be most likely to remember the questions and answers, and I was already writing checks, so I might as well fill out an application,” Kozlowski said.

“I would tell kids coming out of law school – I think most exams are multistate, I think it’s just the essay they have to study up on. So just do it, especially if you live in a border town. People are impressed by that,” she said.

Kozlowski runs a solo practice in Crown Point, where her dual-state licensing comes in handy when handling family law cases, particularly when one parent in a divorce moves across state lines.

“Some people will call before they move to see how moving to another state might affect their child support,” she said.

In probate cases, too, clients appreciate working with an attorney who can handle complicated estate matters.

“Right now I’m doing one where the person owned property in Illinois, but he died in Indiana,” Kozlowski said, adding that a wrongful death lawsuit had been filed on behalf of the decedent. “Now there’s kind of a war as to who has jurisdiction.”

But according to Patrick Olmstead, chair of the ISBA’s Ethics Hotline, some attorneys may misinterpret jurisdiction – or the limits of their ability to work on a case.

Olmstead said an attorney he knew who was living in Ohio and applying to the Ohio bar represented a former Indiana client, who was an Indiana resident, on a will change.

“The Ohio disciplinary authorities found out about the amended will and charged her with the Unauthorized Practice of Law (even though she was an Indiana-licensed attorney taking care of an Indiana client). Other jurisdictions have ruled similarly,” Olmstead said.

“As chair of the Ethics Hotline, I also warn people that multiple licenses create unique disciplinary issues. For example, which state’s disciplinary rules apply when you’re representing an Illinois client? It’s a fact-sensitive question,” he said.

Olmstead is licensed to practice in Indiana and Missouri. “I tell people that it’s a pain, and recommend against getting admitted in multiple states, unless you practice near a border,” he said via email. “I do not actively practice in Missouri. Yet, I still have Missouri CLE requirements, bar dues, etc. Even though it’s easier when you go on ‘inactive’ status, it’s still a use of your time.”

Attorney Candace Armstrong said her motivation for dual-state licensing is likely different than most attorneys’. A 2004 graduate of the Valparaiso University School of Law, she passed the bar in Illinois and went to work for a large law firm in Chicago. But she and her husband found a golf course for sale in Brook, Ind., and decided to buy it. “Golf courses don’t come up for sale in a lot of places,” she said.

Deciding the commute between Brook and Chicago was just a little too far, Armstrong decided to become admitted to practice in Indiana on-motion and opened a solo practice in Brook, a town of about 1,000 people.

Armstrong sees a niche for herself in Brook, where small, rural businesses may not have easy access to attorneys. At least that’s the case in Illinois, she observed. “The attorneys in Illinois seem to be heavily concentrated in Chicago and Springfield,” she said.

Armstrong maintains her Illinois license, because some of her clients have businesses on both sides of the border.

When asked about the possible complications of practicing in two states, Lind did not have any immediate or serious concerns.

“In the litigation aspect of it, there’s a small learning curve – learning the difference between the court systems,” Lind said. “I’m sure there are (complications) in other states, but Illinois accepts my CLE hours,” he said.

State laws regarding advertising for legal services vary from state to state, but, Kozlowski said, she avoids any complications by keeping her strategy simple.

“I go nowhere near that flame,” she said. “I don’t reach out to people. I mean, I advertise, but it’s like general phone book or Internet. More and more, most of your business comes from word of mouth; Internet second; phone book last.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT