MJPs raise questions about ethics, disciplinary rules, bar admission standards and the protection of the public, she said, adding that she believes it's time to look at the rules governing such practices. Although the United States has 51 separate law licensing authorities, supporters of reciprocity argue that technology, ease of travel and changing markets have made state boundaries seem like parochial impediments to commerce and work efficiencies. Add national megafirms, federal practitioners and inhouse counsel for large corporations to the mix, they say, and a uniform standard for admission becomes not only attractive but almost necessary. Each state is allowed under our federal system to establish its own standards for admission. The rules usually require a minimum number of years of practice, such as five of the last seven years, as well as graduation from an ABA-approved law school.
Some states allow inhouse counsel to handle transactional matters.
Most other states also have only one or two law schools, and offer fairly limited access to the bar exam because most require candidates to have graduated from an ABA-approved law school. In California, on the other hand, 60-plus law schools turn out prospective attorneys. While it offers the greatest access to its bar exam of any state, California also sets the standard for admission quite high to make sure that only qualified persons are licensed to practice. Public protection and that high admission standard are the principal reasons reciprocity and comity have so far been rejected in California, says Jerome Braun, the State Bar's director of admissions. The question we need to ask is whether multijurisdictional practices advance or detract from public protection.