There is no indication in the rule itself, or in the Florida Supreme Court's per curiam opinion adopting the rule, how such questions are to be answered. Problems may arise when the Florida rules of conduct conflict with those in the other jurisdiction where the attorney is engaged in practice. In doing so, they remain subject to the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice. If their activity in another jurisdiction is substantial and continuous, it may constitute practice of law in that jurisdiction. See Rule 4-5.5.
Similar problems can arise when a lawyer is licensed to practice in more than one jurisdiction.
The court noted that, under these principles, the applicable law was that of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the parties and to the transaction. The Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the State Bar of Michigan, in its Opinion CI-709, addressed the issue of applicability of the Michigan Bar's disciplinary rules to its members who were also members of the bar of another state. The Committee concluded that an attorney who is admitted in Michigan and in another state, but whose practice in no way involves Michigan, will not be subject to discipline under the applicable Michigan standards for conduct that conforms to the applicable standards of the other state. For an attorney to be subject to the Michigan standards the conduct at issue must in some way involve Michigan or must violate the standards of the other state. Similarly, the Maryland State Bar Committee on Ethics, in Maryland Opinion 86-28, concluded that a Maryland attorney practicing in another state that had ethical restrictions less stringent than those of Maryland should be deemed by Maryland authorities to have acted ethically if he conformed his behavior to the other state's rules of ethics.