Case Title: The Florida Bar Re: Advisory Opinion - Out-of-State Attorney Working Remotely from Florida Home

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC20-1220

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2021-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC20-1220 
____________ 
 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR RE: ADVISORY OPINION—OUT-OF-STATE 
ATTORNEY WORKING REMOTELY FROM FLORIDA HOME. 
 
May 20, 2021 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a proposed 
advisory opinion from the Standing Committee on the Unlicensed 
Practice of Law (Standing Committee) regarding an out-of-state 
licensed attorney working remotely from Florida.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.; R. Regulating Fla. Bar 
10-9.1(g).  
 
Thomas Restaino, an out-of-state licensed attorney, filed with 
the Standing Committee a request for issuance of an advisory 
opinion on the issue of whether it constituted the unlicensed 
practice of law for him to work remotely from his Florida home 
solely on federal intellectual property matters for a New Jersey 
 
- 2 - 
based law firm.  The Standing Committee held a public hearing on 
Mr. Restaino’s request, after which it filed with the Court a 
proposed advisory opinion concluding that Mr. Restaino’s remote 
work activities do not constitute the unlicensed practice of law in 
Florida.   
 
After the Standing Committee filed its proposed advisory 
opinion, the Court invited Mr. Restaino and all other interested 
parties to file either a brief or response in support of or in 
opposition to the opinion.  The Real Property, Probate, and Trust 
Law Section of The Florida Bar filed a response in support of the 
proposed opinion.  No other briefs or responses were filed. 
 
Having considered the proposed opinion and the response 
filed, the Court hereby approves the proposed advisory opinion as 
set forth in the appendix to this opinion.1  
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, 
COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
1.  References in the Appendix to TABS A, B, C, and D, are to 
the attachments to the proposed advisory opinion originally filed by 
the Standing Committee in this case on August 17, 2020. 
 
- 3 - 
Original Proceeding – The Florida Bar Re: Advisory Opinion 
 
Susanne McCabe, Chair, Jeffrey T. Picker, and William A. Spillias, 
Standing Committee on Unlicensed Practice of Law, The Florida 
Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Unlicensed 
Practice of Law 
 
William Thomas Hennessey III, Chair, Real Property, Probate and 
Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
Responding 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
Appendix 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE 
UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW 
FAO #2019-4, OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEY WORKING 
REMOTELY FROM FLORIDA HOME 
________________________________________________/ 
PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 
August 17, 2020 
 
- 5 - 
INTRODUCTION 
 This request for a formal advisory opinion is brought pursuant to Rule 10-
9.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.  The Petitioner, Thomas Restaino 
(hereinafter, “Petitioner”), is an out-of-state licensed attorney who asked whether it 
would be the unlicensed practice of law for him, a Florida domiciliary employed 
by a New Jersey law firm (having no place of business or office in Florida), to 
work remotely from his Florida home solely on matters that concern federal 
intellectual property (hereinafter, “IP”) rights (and not Florida law) and without 
having or creating a public presence or profile in Florida as an attorney (TAB A).   
Pursuant to Rule 10-9.1(f) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, public 
notice of the hearing was provided on The Florida Bar’s website, in The Florida 
Bar News, and in the Orlando Sentinel.  The Standing Committee held a public 
hearing on February 7, 2020.  Testifying at the hearing were the Petitioner and 
Florida attorney Barry Rigby.  In addition to the testimony presented at the hearing 
(TAB B), the Standing Committee received written testimony from three attorneys, 
which has been filed with this Court (Tab C). 
FACTS 
Petitioner set forth the following facts in his request for advisory opinion 
(TAB A) and in his testimony at the public hearing (TAB B): He is licensed to 
practice law in New Jersey, New York, and before the United States Patent and 
 
- 6 - 
Trademark Office (hereinafter “USPTO”).  He is not licensed to practice law in 
Florida.  He recently retired from his position as chief IP counsel for a major U.S. 
Corporation.1  That position was in New Jersey.  He moved from New Jersey to 
Florida.  He started working as an attorney with a New Jersey law firm specializing 
in federal IP law.  The firm has no offices in Florida and has no plans to expand its 
business to Florida.  His professional office will be located at the firm’s business 
address in New Jersey, although he will do most of his work from his Florida home 
using a personal computer securely connected to the firm’s computer network.  In 
the conduct of his employment with the firm, he will not represent any Florida 
persons or entities and will not solicit any Florida clients.  While working remotely 
from his Florida home, he will have no public presence or profile as an attorney in 
Florida.  Neither he nor his firm will represent to anyone that he is a Florida 
attorney.  Neither he nor his firm will advertise or otherwise inform the public of 
his remote work presence in Florida.  The firm’s letterhead and website, and his 
business cards will list no physical address for him other than the firm’s business 
 
 
1.  In that role, Petitioner was responsible for all IP related advice and 
counsel to the businesses and divisions of the company.  And while he is registered 
to practice before the USPTO, that was only a small part of the work he had done 
for the company (TAB B; p. 9, lines 10-17).  While the Supreme Court, in The 
Florida Bar v. Sperry, 373 U.S. 397 (1963), held that Florida may not prohibit the 
representation of clients before the USPTO by USPTO-registered practitioners as 
the unlicensed practice of law, Petitioner’s request does not involve his practice 
before the USPTO, but other aspects of his work. 
 
- 7 - 
address in New Jersey and will identify him as “Of Counsel – Licensed only in 
NY, NJ and the USPTO.”  The letterhead, website, and business cards will show 
that he can be contacted by phone or fax only at the firm’s New Jersey phone and 
fax number.2  His professional email address will be the firm’s domain.  His work 
at the firm will be limited to advice and counsel on federal IP rights issues in 
which no Florida law is implicated, such as questions of patent infringement and 
patent invalidity.3  He will not work on any issues that involve Florida courts or 
Florida property, and he will not give advice on Florida law. 
At the hearing, Petitioner testified “we’ve tried to set up and utilize the 
technology in a fashion that essentially places me virtually in New Jersey.  But for 
the fact that I’m physically sitting in a chair in a bedroom in Florida, every other 
aspect of what I do is no different than where I’m physically sitting in a chair in 
Eatontown, New Jersey and that’s the way I tried to and have structured it so that 
the public sees a presence in, in Eatontown, New Jersey and no other presence.”  
(TAB B, pp. 27-8; lines 25 – 9). 
 
 
2.  Phone calls to his law firm and his extension are routed to his cell phone.  
While clients do not dial his cell phone number directly, Petitioner’s cell phone has 
a New Jersey area code (TAB B; p. 14, lines 5-9 and 13-17). 
 
 
 
3.  Throughout Petitioner’s 32-year legal career, he has limited his practice 
to federal IP rights, generally, with an expertise in patent rights (TAB B; p. 9, lines 
2-6).  Petitioner testified that most of his law firm’s work is for his former 
corporate employer and that as a practical matter he would be working for his 
former employer as outside counsel (TAB B; p. 13, lines 12-15). 
 
- 8 - 
Petitioner further explained “the firm employs a cloud-based system.  All the 
files are located in New Jersey.  It’s actually pretty amazing.  I didn’t have any 
appreciation for this technology before I started with the firm. . . . [T]he way it 
works is . . . my computer in Florida is just a keyboard and a mouse and a screen.  
But the computer doesn’t actually – you don’t generate documents on the 
computer.  Everything is actually on a computer in New Jersey, server in New 
Jersey.  And you are just simply supplying that computer with mouse clicks and 
taps on your keyboard.  And the document you’re creating, . . . like if I were 
writing an amendment to USPTO office action, is actually being created in New 
Jersey.  It’s just the tapping happens in Florida, if you will.” (TAB B; pp. 28-9, 
lines 11 – 3). 
DISCUSSION 
Rule 4-5.5(b)(1) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar provides that a 
lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Florida may not establish an office or 
other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law. 
It is clear from the facts in Petitioner’s request and his testimony at the 
public hearing that Petitioner and his law firm will not be establishing a law office 
in Florida.  It is equally clear that Petitioner will not be establishing a regular 
presence in Florida for the practice of law; he will merely be living here.    
 
- 9 - 
The facts raised in Petitioner’s request, quite simply, do not implicate the 
unlicensed practice of law in Florida.  Petitioner is not practicing Florida law or 
providing legal services for Florida residents.  Nor is he or his law firm holding out 
to the public as having a Florida presence.  As Petitioner testified, “we . . . tr[ied] 
to make sure that no Florida citizens, no Florida businesses, certainly not the 
Florida courts, would have any exposure to me or . . . the work I was doing.” (TAB 
B, p. 13; lines 19-23). 
All indicia point to Petitioner’s practice of law as being in New Jersey, not 
in Florida.  It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that based on the facts set 
forth in his request and hearing testimony, and since there is no attempt by 
Petitioner or his firm to create a public presence in Florida, Petitioner does not 
have a presence in Florida for the practice of law. 
As this Court noted in The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 417 (Fla. 
1980), “the single most important concern in the Court’s defining and regulating 
the practice of law is the protection of the public from incompetent, unethical, or 
irresponsible representation.”  Because Petitioner is not providing legal services to 
Florida clients, no Floridians are being harmed by Petitioner’s activity and there 
are no interests of Floridians that need to be protected by this Court.4   
 
 
4.  Under Rule 8.5(a) of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 
(TAB D), a lawyer admitted to practice in New Jersey is subject to the disciplinary 
authority of New Jersey regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.  
 
- 10 - 
In May 2019, the Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee (hereinafter, 
“UEAOC”), in Opinion No. 19-03, opined that an individual licensed in another 
state who establishes a home in Utah and practices law for clients from the state 
where the attorney is licensed and who neither solicits Utah clients nor establishes 
a public office in Utah is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (TAB E).  
In coming to this conclusion, the UEAOC found no case in any jurisdiction where 
an attorney was disciplined for practicing law out of a private residence for out-of-
state clients located in the state where the attorney is licensed.  It also pointed out 
that the concern [under Utah’s version of Rule 4-5.5] is that an attorney not 
establish an office or public presence in a jurisdiction where the attorney is not 
admitted, and that concern is based upon the need to protect the interests of 
potential clients in that jurisdiction.  In paragraph 16 of its opinion, the UEAOC 
posed the following question: “[W]hat interest does the Utah State Bar have in 
regulating an out-of-state lawyer’s practice for out-of-state clients simply because 
he has a private home in Utah? . . . [T]he answer is . . . none.”   
Like the UEAOC, the Standing Committee’s concern is that the Petitioner 
does not establish an office or public presence in Florida for the practice of law.  
As discussed above, neither is occurring here.  And in answering the same question 
 
Consequently, Petitioner’s clients would be protected by the Office of Attorney 
Ethics, the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Supreme Court of New 
Jersey. 
 
- 11 - 
posed by the UEAOC, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee that there is no 
interest that warrants regulating Petitioner’s practice for his out-of-state clients 
under the circumstances described in his request simply because he has a private 
home in Florida. 
In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Standing Committee finds 
the written testimony of Florida-licensed attorney, Salomé J. Zikakis, to be 
particularly persuasive: 
I believe the future, if not the present, will involve more and more 
attorneys and other professionals working remotely, whether from second homes 
or a primary residence.  Technology has enabled this to occur, and this flexibility 
can contribute to an improved work/life balance.  It is not a practice to 
discourage. 
 
There are areas of the law that do not require being physically present, 
whether in a courtroom or a law office.  Using the attorney’s physical presence in 
Florida as the definitive criteria [sic] is inappropriate.  So long as the attorney is 
not practicing Florida law, is not advertising that he practices Florida law, and 
creates no public presence or profile as a Florida attorney, then there is no UPL 
simply because the attorney is physically located in Florida.  There is no harm to 
the public.  These facts do not and should not constitute UPL in Florida. 
 
(TAB C). 
CONCLUSION 
It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that the Petitioner who simply 
establishes a residence in Florida and continues to provide legal work to out-of-
state clients from his private Florida residence under the circumstances described 
in this request does not establish a regular presence in Florida for the practice of 
 
- 12 - 
law.  Consequently, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee that it would not 
be the unlicensed practice of law for Petitioner, a Florida domiciliary employed by 
a New Jersey law firm (having no place of business or office in Florida), to work 
remotely from his Florida home solely on matters that concern federal intellectual 
property rights (and not Florida law) and without having or creating a public 
presence or profile in Florida as an attorney. 
/s/ Susanne McCabe by Jeffrey T. Picker 
Susanne McCabe, Chair 
Standing Committee on  
Unlicensed Practice of Law 
The Florida Bar 
651 East Jefferson Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 
(850) 561-5840 
Fla. Bar No. 771511  
Primary Email: upl@floridabar.org 
/s/ Jeffrey T. Picker 
Jeffrey T. Picker 
Fla. Bar No. 12793 
/s/ William A. Spillias 
William A. Spillias 
Fla. Bar No. 909769  
The Florida Bar 
651 East Jefferson Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 
(850) 561-5840 
Primary Email: jpicker@floridabar.org 
Secondary Email: upl@floridabar.org