A New York lawyer can work as of counsel from France.

A New York lawyer in France can work for a New York firm

A New York-admitted lawyer who lives in France can work remotely for a New York boutique as “Of Counsel,” according to New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1303, issued October 6, 2026.

The opinion considered a lawyer who would work through a French sole proprietorship, an entreprise individuelle, and invoice the New York firm. The lawyer would have no physical presence in New York. The work would concern only New York law and U.S. federal law, not French or European law.

The firm would supervise the lawyer’s work, control the client relationship, and review the work product. Client calls and emails would use firm-assigned phone and email accounts. The lawyer’s title would appear on the firm’s letterhead, business cards, website, and notices, alongside the firm’s name and New York address. The clients would be domiciled in the United States.

Before publication, we read the full opinion on the NYSBA site and checked its conclusion against each of the five rules it cites, Rules 1.10, 5.1, 5.5, 7.5, and 8.5. One detail stood out. Every client call and email runs through the firm’s assigned phone number and email account, rather than the lawyer’s French business. That fact sits beneath both the supervision analysis and the question whether the “Of Counsel” designation could mislead clients.

The lawyer would not register as a Foreign Legal Consultant under 22 NYCRR Part 521.

The committee answered three questions, but not all three the same way

The inquiry asked whether the lawyer could contract with the firm to provide remote services on New York and federal law from France. It also asked whether the lawyer could use the “Of Counsel” designation and whether the arrangement satisfied Judiciary Law section 470’s physical office requirement.

The committee answered the first two questions yes, subject to three conditions. It did not answer the section 470 question because the committee treated that issue as a question of law, not legal ethics.

Rule 5.5 governs unauthorized practice. Opinion 1303 relied on ABA Formal Opinion 495, issued December 16, 2020. That opinion said a lawyer may practice the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed while physically located in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed, if the local jurisdiction has not found that conduct unauthorized and the lawyer does not claim to be licensed there, advertise a local office, or offer local legal services.

Opinion 1303 said no French prohibition appeared to bar this arrangement. It therefore concluded that remote practice of New York law from France did not violate Rule 5.5. The committee left the French law question to the lawyer and firm.

The opinion is advisory. Its conclusion applies to the facts presented, including the limited subject matter, the U.S. client base, the firm-controlled communications, and the New York address used with the title.

The “Of Counsel” title depends on the relationship

New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide one definition of “Of Counsel.” Rule 7.5 Comment [7] permits “Counsel,” “Special Counsel,” and “Of Counsel” designations when a lawyer has a continuing relationship with a lawyer or firm, other than as a partner or associate.

Prior NYSBA opinions, including Opinions 263 from 1972, 936 from 2012, and 1137 from 2017, describe the relationship as close, regular, and personal. The designation also cannot mislead. The New York City Bar addressed a foreign-based “Of Counsel” relationship in Formal Opinion 2013-3.

Opinion 1303 assumed that the proposed relationship met that standard, but left the factual determination to the lawyer and the firm. Its first condition requires a close, continuing, personal relationship between them.

The communications structure in the inquiry also mattered. Clients would contact the lawyer through the firm’s assigned accounts. The lawyer would not present a separate French office to the clients, and the firm would retain control of the client relationship.

New York supervision and discipline still apply

The lawyer’s location does not remove the firm’s supervision duties. Under Rule 5.1, the firm must make reasonable efforts to ensure that its lawyers comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The “Of Counsel” title does not reduce that obligation.

The opinion said supervision must be reasonable under the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the lawyer’s experience, workload, and the risks presented by the work. The firm’s supervisory authority was part of the inquiry’s stated facts.

Rule 8.5(a) creates a separate consequence. A New York-admitted lawyer remains subject to New York discipline wherever the conduct occurs. Opinion 1303 noted that the same conduct could expose the lawyer to discipline in both New York and France.

The committee’s third condition therefore requires full compliance with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The second requires that the arrangement comply with France’s regulation of the legal profession. The opinion did not decide the French-law question.

Archivar, which publishes The Docket, builds a system for law firms that answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish and remembers everything the firm does. A lawyer working six hours ahead in Paris is one example of why we pay attention to who answers the firm’s line, and in which language, when the office is closed on one side of the ocean.

Section 470 remains a separate legal question

Judiciary Law section 470 requires New York-admitted lawyers who live outside New York to maintain an office for the transaction of law business in the state. In Schoenefeld v. State of New York, the New York Court of Appeals held in 2015 that the statute requires a physical office, not merely an address for service. The Second Circuit upheld section 470 against a Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge in 2016, and the Supreme Court denied review in 2017.

Opinion 1303 did not decide whether the arrangement satisfied section 470. It pointed to Matter of Tatko v. McCarthy, a 1999 Appellate Division, Third Department decision holding that an “Of Counsel” relationship with a New York lawyer who had an office in the state was sufficient. The opinion also pointed to In re Banco Popular North America, a 2017 decision reaching the same result.

The opinion’s answer is therefore a conditional yes: remote work from France and the “Of Counsel” title are permitted on the stated facts, while French regulation, the relationship itself, New York’s conduct rules, and section 470 remain distinct questions.

A New York-admitted lawyer in France may work as of counsel to a New York firm, on three conditions.

Supervision and New York discipline follow the lawyer across the ocean.

Whether the arrangement satisfies the state's office statute is a question the opinion left to the courts.