Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:46:27.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Practice Rights of Domestic and Foreign Lawyers in the United States©

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Roger J. Goebel
Roger J. Goebel
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, Director of the Center on European Union Law, Fordham Law School. This article is based upon a paper delivered at the World Congress of Comparative Law Bristol, 28 Jul. 1998. My thanks to my then assistant, Roger Gold.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the post-World War II international economy, with its enormous growth in transnational trade and investment, multinational legal practice has become a functional reality.1 Within the last two decades, the volume of trans-border legal practice has grown enormously in fields such as trade law, international banking and finance, international arbitration and litigation, international contractual and joint venture arrangements, transborder acquisitions and mergers, international antitrust, international tax planning, and foreign investment counselling. Domestic law firms within the leading commercial nations have not only grown substantially in size, often by merger, they have also increasingly created networks of foreign branch offices, or entered into international association or joint venture relationships with firms in other countries.2

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 413 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The US Department of Commerce estimated that US law firms collected $1.4 billion from foreign clients in 1992. Taylor, G., “US firms are Export Machines” (30 May 1994) Nat'l L.J. 6Google Scholar. A current and comprehensive survey of rules in the United States, the European Community and selected major national jurisdictions governing the trans-boundary international practice of law is Cone, Sydney III, International Trade in Legal Services (1997)Google Scholar. For a comparative analysis of international practice rules and ethics in Europe and the United States, see Daly, Mary & Goebel, Roger, Rights, Liability and Ethics in International Legal Practice (1995).Google Scholar

2. For a detailed survey of international law firms with branch offices in the United States, Europe and other commercial centres, see Abel, Richard, “The Future of the Legal Profession: Transnational Law Practice”, (1994) 44 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 737.Google Scholar

3. (1989) 63 Tulane L.Rev. 443.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., at pp.447–454.

5. For a comprehensive analysis of European Community rules up to 1992, see Goebel, Roger, “Lawyers in the European Community: Progress Toward Community-Wide Rights of Practice” (1992) 15 Fordham Int'l L.J. 556Google Scholar; Siskind, Gregory, “Freedom of Movement of Lawyers in the New Europe” (1992) 26 Int'l Law 899Google Scholar. The leading recent European Court of Justice judgment is Case C–55/94 Gebhard v. Milan Bar Council, [1995] E.C.R. 1–4165, noted by Professor Lonbay, Julian (1996) 33 C.M.L.R. 1073.Google Scholar

6. See Barker, Julie, “The North American Free Trade Agreement and the Complete Integration of the Legal Profession” (1996) Houston J. Int'l L. 95.Google Scholar

7. The IBA's final text is the “Statement of General Principles for the Establishment and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers”, approved by the IBA Council in Vienna in June 1998. See the text at n.155 infra.

8. Moeser, Erica, “The Future of Bar Admissions and the State Judiciary”, (1997) 72 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1169Google Scholar. Ms Moeser is the current President of the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

9. Hazard, Geoffrey Jr, “State Supreme Court Regulatory Authority over the Legal Profession” (1997) 72 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1177.Google Scholar

10. See Comisky, Marvin & Patterson, Philip, “The Case for a Federally Created National Bar by Rule or by Legislation” (1982) 55 Temp.L.Q. 945Google Scholar; Williams, Eric, “A National Bar—Carpe Diem” (1996) 5 Kansas J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 201Google Scholar; Zacharias, Fred, “Federalizing Legal Ethics” (1994) 73 Texas L.Rev. 335Google Scholar. For a critical review and rejection of a national bar approach, see Wolfram, Charles, “Sneaking Around in the Legal Profession: Interjurisdictional Unauthorized Practice by Transnational Lawyers” (1995) 36 S. Tex.L.Rev. 666, at pp.701–707.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., at 122.

12. 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (New Mexico Bar cannot exclude an application with current moral fitness credentials merely because he had been a Communist party member prior to World War II).

13. 413 U.S. 717 (1973).

14. Ibid., at 722–724.

15. Reyners v. Belgium Case 2/74, [1974] E.C.R. 631, analysed in Roger Goebel, Lawyers in the European Community, op. cit., supra n.5 at pp.570–572.

16. 470 U.S. 274 (1985); accord, Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546 (1989).

17. 470 U.S. 274 at 281.

18. Ibid., at 285.

19. Ibid., at 786.

20. 487 U.S. 59 (1998) 69–70.

21. 498 F.Supp. 240 (E.D. Penn. 1980).

22. See Charles Wolfram, “Sneaking Around in the Legal Profession”, op. cit., supra n.10, at pp.674–676.

23. Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) (a patent agent with a Florida office need not be a Florida lawyer).

24. Hazard, op. cit., supra n.9, at p.1177.

25. Moeser, op. cit., supra n.8, at p.1169.

26. White, James, “State Supreme Courts as Regulators of the Profession” (1997) 72 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1155, at pp.1156–1157Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that William Howard Taft, then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, seconded the motion to adopt this Report

27. 39 States require a degree from an ABA-accredited law school. See American Bar Association, Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements (1996–1997), pp.16–18.Google Scholar

28. Jarvis, Robert, “An Anecdotal History of the Bar Exam”, (1996) 9 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 359, at pp.366–367Google Scholar. See also Hansen, Daniel, “Note, Do We Need the Bar Examination”, (1995) 45 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 1191.Google Scholar

29. American Bar Association, Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

30. American Bar Association, A Review of Legal Education in the United States (Fall 1997).

31. Eric Williams, op. at, supra n.10, at p.202. See also the valuable App. A survey of all states' examination requirements.

32. Norman Krivoska, “The Case for a National Bar Examination—Seeing How It's Broke, How Come We Aren't Fixing It” (Sum. 1987) Amer.Corp. Counsel Ass'n Docket 6, at 7.

33. Council Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas, O.J. L19/16 (24 Jan. 1989). The Directive's impact on the legal profession is analysed in Roger Goebel, Lawyers in the European Community, op. cit., supra n.5, at pp.595–601, and in Schloh, Bernhard, “Freedom of Movement of Lawyers Within the EEC” (1990) 9 St. Louis U.Pub.L.Rev. 83, at pp.95–98.Google Scholar

34. Any review of lawyers' professional rules in the US is beyond the scope of this short article. For an overview, see Professor Wolfram's, Charles valuable study, Modem Legal Ethics (1986).Google Scholar

35. The Third Restatement's complete text was approved by the ALI at its May 1998 meeting and a final edited text is scheduled for publication in 2000. Proposed Final Draft No.1 (1996), Proposed Final Draft No.2 (1998), and Tentative Draft No.8 (1997) contain the current text.

36. The CCBE Code of Conduct text, together with an authoritative appraisal by a former CCBE President, is in Toulmin, John, “A Worldwide Common Code of Professional Ethics?”, (1992) 15 Fordham Int'l L.J. 673Google Scholar, reprinted in Mary Daly & Roger Goebel, op. cit., supra n.1, at p.207. The Code of Conduct was amended on 28 Nov. 1998 to provide somewhat more detailed rules, which are in the course of adoption by national bar associations.

37. For a comparison of the Code of Conduct with prevailing US state rules, see Terry, Laurel, “Introduction to the EC's Legal Ethics Code” (1993) 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1Google Scholar, and (1993) 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 345.Google Scholar

38. Charles Wolfram, op. cit., supra n.10, at p.680.

39. ALI, Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, Proposed Final Draft No.2, s.2, comment 6. For an analytical discussion of admission on motion, see Charles Wolfram, op. cit., supra n.10, at 680–684. Eric Williams, op. cit., supra n.10, lists the states permitting admission on motion in Appendix A. Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania are among the important commercial states that admit lawyers on motion.

40. See the list in Eric Williams, op. at, supra n.10, Appendix A.

41. Charles Wolfram, op. cit. supra n.10, at pp.681–682. South Carolina's reciprocal treatment obligation was upheld as constitutional in Hawkins v. Moss, 503 F.2d 1171 (4th Cir. 1974), cert den., 420 U.S. 928 (1975).

42. Some states require the lawyer to be practising within the state for a substantial period of time. In re Arthur, 415 N.W.2d 168 (Iowa 1987); In re Sackman, 448 A.2d 1014 (N.J. 1982). New York is more lenient, permitting a mail address and answering service to suffice. Austria v. Shaw, 542 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1989).

43. Eric Williams, op. at, supra n.10, at p.202 and App. A. California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington are among the larger States requiring an examination, although in California and Massachusetts the examination may be a shorter one than the usual bar examination.

44. Charles Wolfram, op. at, supra n.10, at 680–681.

45. Supra n.33.

46. Case C–340/89, Vlassopoulou v. Baden-Wurtenberg Ministry of Justice [1991] E.C.R. 2357.

47. See Roger Goebel, “Lawyers in the European Community”, op. cit., supra n.5, at pp.599–600.

48. European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a member state other than that in which the qualification is obtained, O.J. L77 16 Feb. 1998 p.36. The Directive's text was substantially influenced by the famous Court of Justice judgment, Case C–55/94, Gebhard v. Milan Bar Council, [1995] E.C.R. 1–4165. in which the court indicated that a lawyer's right of establishment could only be limited by state rules properly protecting an important public interest.

49. Member states have the option of forbidding the lawyers established under their Home State title from regular appearance in court or administrative litigation, from executing real estate transactions, and from handling decedents estates. See Art.5.

50. ALI, Proposed Final Draft No.2, s.3, Comment e. For a detailed analysis, see Canfield, Thomas, “Note, The Criminal Defendant's Right to Retain Counsel Pro Hace Vice” (1989) 57 Fordham L.Rev. 785.Google Scholar

51. See, e.g. Enquire Printing & Publishing Co. v. O'Reilly, 477 A.2d 648 (Conn. 1984); State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 (R.I. 1984).

52. Flynt v. Leis, 439 U.S. 438 (1979) (per curium).

53. E.g. Duncan v. St. Romain, 569 So. 2d 687 (Miss. 1990); In re Smith, 272 S.E.2d 834 (N.C 1981).

54. In Ford v. Israel, 701 F.2d 689 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 464 U.S. 832 (1983), the court held that the client's right to counsel was not violated when the client could not afford out-of-state counsel as well as a local lawyer.

55. Norman Krivosha, op. cit., supra n.32, at p.8.

56. ALI, Proposed Final Draft No.2, at s.3(3).

57. Ibid. at Comment b.

58. Ibid. at Comment e.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid. at Comment f. Florida, Idaho and Missouri have adopted rules of practice that specifically exempt in-house counsel from passing a state bar examination in order to be admitted, or otherwise authorising their local transactional practice.

61. E.g. Appell v. Reiner, 204 A.2d 146 (N.J. 1964); Condon v. Superior Court, Cal.Rpt.2d (Cal.Ct.App. 922); El Gemayel v. Seaman, 533 N.E.2d 245 (N.Y. 1988); Fought & Co. v. Steel Engineering, 951 P. 487 (Haw. 1998).

62. E.g. Kennedy v. Bar Ass'n. of Montgomery County, 561 A.2d 200 (Md. 1989) (out-of-state lawyer forbidden to operate local office even for practice of federal law); accord, Cinsburg v. Kovrak, 139 A.2d 889 (Pa. 1958).

63. The most recent prominent example is Birbrower, Montalbono, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, 949 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1998). Earlier instances are Martin & Martin v. Jones, 541 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1989); Perlah v. S.E.I. Corp., 612 A.2d 806 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1992); Spivak v. Sachs, 211 N.E.2d 329 (N.Y. 1965).

64. Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, supra n.63.

65. Charles Wolfram, op. cit., supra n.10, at pp.684 and 693.

66. Ibid. at 707.

67. Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide service, (1997) O.J. L78/17. For a description of the directive and the related Court of Justice case law, see Roger Goebel, “Lawyers in the European Community”, op. cit., supra n.5, at pp.576–585.

68. Supra n.13.

69. Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.4.3.4.

70. The Rule of the Court of the New York Court of Appeals is Rule 520.6(b)(1)i which prescribes that the law degree come from a “country whose jurisprudence it based upon the principles of the English Common Law [whose] program and course of law study…were the substantial equivalent of the legal education provided by an approved law school in the United States.…” 22 N.Y.Ct.App.R. Part 520 (1998). Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, summarises the California regime at s.4.3.3.2, and lists eight other states with a similar approach in s.4.3.2.

71. Sydney Cone, op. at, supra n.1, at ss.4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2, lists Arizona, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Wyoming as the states which permit foreign recipients of US LL.M. degrees to take their state bar examination. Technically, the American Bar Association only “acquiesces” in an accredited law school's offering of an LL.M. degree, rather than separately accrediting the degree, but the practical effect is the same.

72. Pennsylvania requires 30 credit hours at an ABA-accredited law school, the District of Columbia requires 26 credit hours, and seven other States require one year of full-time law studies, sometimes including specified subjects. Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at ss.4.3.2 to 4.3.3.

73. For a review of American legal education for foreign students as of 1988, see Roger Goebel, “Professional Qualification and Educational Requirements for Law Practice in a Foreign County”, op. cit., supra n.3, at pp.460–462. For an update, see Clark, David, “Transnational Legal Practice: The Need for Global Law Schools”, 46 Am.J.Comp.L. 261 (1998 Supp.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Almost half of all accredited law schools now offer an LL.M. degree. For a complete list, school by school, see American Bar Association, A Review of Legal Education in the United States (Fall, 1998).

75. The author is unaware of any statistics. These estimates are based on contacts with a representative sample of directors of graduate programmes within the American Association of Law Schools Section on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers, of which the author is a former chairman.

76. N.Y.Ct.App.R. Part 520, s.520.6 (1980).

77. N.Y.Ct.App.R. Part 520 s.520.6(b).

78. Supra n.70. See also Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.5.2.

79. The initial rule is described in Roger Goebel, op. cit., supra n.3, at p.474, especially n.80. The revised rule is described in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.5.3.

80. N.Y.Ct.App.R. Part 520, s.520.6(b), as amended by Court Order, 7 May 1998.

81. Ibid., at s.520.6(b)(1)ii.

82. Sydney Cone, op. at., supra n.1, at s.3.6, based upon enquiries made with the responsible New York State officials administering the bar examination.

83. Supra, nn.62 and 63.

84. Charles Wolfram, op. cit., supra n.10, at p.687, refers to “vigorous application of the disciplinary rules [against] disbarred lawyers, … lawyers who have not completed the process of passing the bar exam…and lawyers admitted only in a foreign country”.

85. 3 N.Y.2d 224, 144 N.E.2d 24 (1957), appeal dismissed, 335 U.S. 605 (1958). See generally Janis, Mark, “The Lawyer's Responsibility for Foreign Law and Foreign Lawyers” (1982) 16 Int'l Law. 693Google Scholar; Lutz, Robert, “Ethics and International Practice: A Guide to the Professional Responsibilities of Practitioners” (1992–1993) 16 Fordham Int'l L.J. 53.Google Scholar

86. 3 N.Y.2d 224, 229, 144 N.E.2d 24, 26.

87. The States are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington. American Bar Association, Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements (1999). For citations to their respective rules, see the valuable article by Professor Needham, Carol, “The Licensing of Foreign Legal Consultants in the United States”, (1998) 21 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1126, at n.2Google Scholar, and the detailed description of each State's regime in Sydney Cone, International Trade in Legal Services § 4.2 (1997).

88. For a more detailed discussion, see Roger Goebel, op. cit., supra n.3, at pp.464–465.

89. Titre 11, chap.1, Loi No.71–1130 du 31 Dec. 1971, J.O. 131, 5 Jan. 1972; 1972 Gazette du Palais 39, at 44. See Herzog, & Herzog, , “The Reform of the Legal Professions and of Legal Aid in France” (1973) 22 I.C.L.Q. 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. See Roger Goebel, op. cit., supra n.3, at pp.465–467.

91. Ibid., at pp.465–466.

92. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a law professor, chaired an ABA committee study that endorsed the draft proposal. Major multinational law firms (such as Baker MacKenzie; Cleary Gottlieb; Coudert Brothers; and Debevoise Plimpton) lobbied energetically for the new rules.

93. Sydney (Terry) Cone III, a retired senior partner at Cleary Gottlieb and professor at New York Law School, worked actively in the adoption efforts in 1971–1974. He describes this period in Sydney Cone, op. cit. supra n.1, at ss.3.2 and 3.3.2.

94. N.Y.Jud. Law s.53(6) (McKinney).

95. N.Y.Ct.App.R. Part 521.

96. Ibid., at s.521.2(3).

97. See Roger Goebel, op. at, supra n3, at pp.483–485.

98. See Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.4.2.2.1.

99. Ibid., at s.4.2.1.

100. The rules in each State are described in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.4.2, as well as organised in patterns of different approaches to issues by Carol Needham, op. cit, supra, n.87.

101. The ABA Model Rule and the Report are reproduced in (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207.

102. The amendment is summarised in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.2.

103. Ibid., at s.4.2.5.4 to 4.2.5.9.

104. (1992) 32 I.L.M. 297.

105. The somewhat complicated provisions are described in Julie Barker, op. at, supra n.6, at pp.100–103, in Chrusch, Michael, “The North American Free Trade Agreement: Reasons for Passage and Requirements to Be a Foreign Legal Consultant in a NAFTA Country” (1996) 3 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp.L. 177Google Scholar, and by Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.6.4–6.6.

106. Sydney Cone, op. cit, supra n.1, at s.6.5.3.

107. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.1(a)(1). The applicant must also be 26 and possess a “good moral character and general fitness”. Ibid., at (a)(3) and (4).

108. Ibid., at (a)(2). See the discussion in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.3.1.

109. Ibid., see the discussion in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.3.1.

110. Prof. Needham lists 15 jurisdictions following this rule, while California and Ohio use four of the prior six years, and other States have varying approaches. Carol Needham, op. at, supra n.87, at pp.1132–1134.

111. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.1(a)(5).

112. See (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at pp.223–224.

113. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.2. New York does not, however, require legal consultants to maintain any level of professional liability or malpractice insurance.

114. See Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at pp.1136–1138.

115. E.g. New Mexico and North Carolina.

116. See Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at pp.1134–1136, listing eight States and the District of Columbia as adopting this approach.

117. (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at p.225.

118. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.2(b). See Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.2.

119. See Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.3.2.

120. Supra nn.67 and 48 respectively.

121. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.3(a). However, a legal consultant may prepare papers and documents for use in a court proceeding by virtue of the 1993 amendment.

122. For a review, see Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at pp.1131–1132.

123. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.3(b)–(d).

124. See Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at pp.1131–1132, noting that Connecticut, Missouri and New Mexico do not list these areas of restricted practice, but that Illinois also forbids legal consultants to pursue personal injury claims, or to handle customs, trade or immigration matters.

125. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.3(e). For a description of its origin, see Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.3.2.3. He regards the Rule's negative language, followed by “except” as drafted for “cosmetic reasons”, since the overall text is “properly read as permissive”.

126. (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at pp.226–229.

127. See Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at pp.1129–1130. Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.4.2, describes the debate on this issue in the adoption of rules in several of the States concerned.

128. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.3(g).

129. Ibid., at s.521.3(f).

130. (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at p.228.

131. See Carol Needham, op. cit, supra n.87, at pp.1144–1145; Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1. s.3.3.3.

132. N.Y.Ct.App.R. S.521.4

133. ABA Model Rule, s.5 Rights and Obligations.

134. (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at pp.231–232.

135. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.4(b)ii.

136. (1994) 28 lnt'1 Law. 207, at p.233 n.64.

137. ALI, Proposed Final Draft No.1 of the Law Governing Lawyers s.122 Comment e (29 Mar. 1996).

138. E.g. Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 531 F.Supp. 951 (N.D.III. 1982); Renfield Corp. v. E. Remy Martin & Co., 98 F.R.D. 442 (D.Del. 1982).

139. (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at p.232.

140. Case 155/79, [1982] E.C.R. 1575. The American Bar Association House of Delegates formally protested the court ruling. For further discussion of the case and its aftermath, see Roger Goebel, op. Cit., supra n.3, at pp.502–503.

141. N.Y.Ct.App.R. s.521.5.

142. ABA Model Rule s.6, commented upon in the Report, (1994) 28 Int'l Law. 207, at pp.232–233.

143. 546 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y.App.Div. 1989).

144. International Customs Assoc. Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc., N.Y.L.J. at 26 (1995).

145. Carol Needham states that there were 249 legal consultants in New York in mid-1997, based on contacts with the New York Bar. Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at p.1139.

146. Sydney Cone compiled figures in Oct. 1995, based on contacts with the state courts. He indicates that 28 legal consultants were registered in the District of Columbia. Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at App. II–C.

147. Sydney Cone listed nine legal consultants for California, 11 for Florida and 10 for Hawaii. Ibid., Carol Needham's contact with the California Bar showed 11 as registered in Jul. 1997. Carole Needham, op. cit, supra n.87, at p.1139 n.145.

148. The Council of Legal Consultants, a body informally grouping many legal consultants for co-ordination among themselves and with the New York City Bar, provided the figure of over 60 foreign law firm branches to Sydney Cone. Ibid., at s.3.6.

149. Carol Needham, op. cit., supra n.87, at p.1139 n.144.

150. Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at s.3.3.1, criticises this practice as “lethargic” and perhaps an “abuse both of the licensing process and of New York's policy” behind the creation of legal consultants.

151. For a review of the 1991 rules, see Christian Raoult, “Regulation of the Profession; The French System”, in Mary Daly & Roger Goebel, op. cit., supra n.1, at p.53. A very detailed analysis is provided in Sydney Cone, op. cit., supra n.1, at Ch.9 France.

152. Supra n.48.

153. See text at nn.104–106 supra.

154. Sydney Cone, op. cit, supra n.1, at Ch. 2 GATS, provides a detailed review of the relevant Uruguay Round negotiations and their rather limited outcome in the field of legal services.

155. Supra n.7.