A SMALL YET steady stream of inquirers has been peppering the Supreme Court and the Bar Association with questions on how and when they can start the process of seeking admission by motion (without taking the NH Bar exam). They now have their answers from the court about how to go about the process, and now it is the Bar and the court that are in anticipation, waiting to see just how many attorneys take up the option and what impact admission by motion will have on the size of the Bar and the character of practice.

The NH Supreme Court last month issued an application form and clarified procedures for out-of-state attorneys seeking admission to the NH Bar on motion under the revised Supreme Court Rule 42 governing admission to practice in New Hampshire, which took effect March 1. (The NH Supreme Court has published on its Web site at www.courts.state.nh.us/nhbar/index.htm a list of states which it has determined have "similar" reciprocal provisions to New Hampshire. The court’s list does not yet include all of the states listed on this map developed from data from the National Conference of Bar Examiners.) On Feb. 27, the court issued Form A, the Motion for Admission Pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 (10) and set a fee of $175 for the application. In addition, candidates must pay an investigation fee of $500 to obtain the required Character and Fitness Committee approval needed for admission.

Court officials said that the character and fitness review for new admittees currently takes up to six months to complete, and Supreme Court Clerk Eileen Fox said she does not anticipate that the process will be significantly shorter for admission-by-motion candidates.

Fox added that court officials have no way of knowing how many attorneys, in neighboring states or elsewhere in the country, will seek to take advantage of the new admission-by-motion option.

The new option also opens the door for New Hampshire attorneys to seek admission to at least 14 states that offer admission-by-motion privileges. (See accompanying map.) In most cases, that option is reciprocal, but before Rule 42 (10) was approved, admission by motion wasn’t available to New Hampshire attorneys in many of those states. Again, there is no telling how many attorneys will be interested in this new opportunity to waive examination and be admitted in another state.

Attorneys at two of the state’s largest firms, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton and Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green, said the admission-by-motion option would make it easier for them to maintain region-wide practices.

Thomas Donovan, director of litigation at the McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton law firm, welcomes the new admission-by-motion process, saying that it will enable the firm’s lawyers to better meet their clients’ diverse needs. "About 40 percent of our lawyers already are members of bars outside of NH," Donovan said in e-mail to Bar News.

"We expect that admission by motion will double the number of lawyers at McLane who are admitted in states other than New Hampshire. McLane lawyers already practice in states outside of New Hampshire where particular client needs dictate and the ethics rules permit. As the business of legal services becomes more national and international, McLane lawyers and other New Hampshire lawyers increasingly will look for client work out of state. The out-of-state lawyers are already here, handling litigation in our courts and closing deals involving New Hampshire companies. New Hampshire lawyers have the knowledge to perform similar work out of state, and admission-by-motion will allow that."

Alan Reische, primarily a transactional attorney at the Sheehan firm, said he expects many of his firm’s attorneys will seek admission by motion in Massachusetts as well as other states. "This is something we have been hoping for," Reische said.

Although in a business context multi-jurisdictional practice is a reality, Reische said that being admitted by motion "removes any doubt" about the legality of his handling transactions for clients that originate in another state if he is indeed licensed there.

However, in the litigation arena, many trial lawyers in New Hampshire say prudence, not just the rules, will dictate retaining local counsel in litigation. Richard McNamara of Wiggin & Nourie, who is often involved in multi-district litigation in the federal courts, said that for large-stakes cases, he would continue to hire local counsel who are familiar with the rules and procedures in that location.

Interest, and sometimes concern, is stirring among general practitioners in areas such as the Upper Valley or along the NH-Massachusetts border, where the potential for cross-border practice is highest.

Karl Clauson, of Clauson & Atwood in Hanover, said his firm has many clients whose legal needs commonly cross the Connecticut River separating New Hampshire and Vermont, and he welcomes the rule change. " It will be a real benefit for our firm and our clients for it to be easier to be admitted in both states. Clients like to hire an attorney who can go back and forth across the border with them," Clauson said.

George H. Ostler, a former NH public defender admitted in both NH and Vermont who has an office in Norwich, Vt., said it depends on the practice area whether Upper Valley lawyers will seek admission to the neighboring state. In his area of criminal defense, Ostler said it is "the rule rather than the exception" that attorneys are already admitted in both states.

Down in Keene, however, general practitioner Ted Parent, who handles primarily criminal defense and marital matters, said he isn’t interested in being admitted in Vermont, even though he sometimes has to turn away clients with matters in that state. "It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about Brattleboro or Portsmouth," Parent said. "I very rarely take cases outside of Cheshire County. In another jurisdiction, I don’t know the people. It’s also a scheduling issue. If I have multiple hearings on the same day, I can juggle that, but if one of those hearings is in another city, my options are much more limited."

Although there was little opposition openly expressed before the admission-by-motion rule was adopted, some NH attorneys in border communities are expecting some negative impact on practice in their areas from an influx of border-crossers unfamiliar with the New Hampshire practice environment.

"I am very concerned about it," said Michael Alfano, a Portsmouth trial attorney who primarily handles civil matters and anticipates more appearances by attorneys from Maine and Massachusetts. "There is a segment of the [out-of-state] bar that routinely conceals information and I just don’t think that New Hampshire as a state is ready for it. I don’t think NH’s disciplinary system will have the ability to take to task some of these lawyers."

Peter Goldsmith, of Barker & Goldsmith in Nashua, said his office receives several inquiries a week from callers with matters in Massachusetts courts, but he is more comfortable staying on the Granite State side of the border, although he anticipates there probably will be a number of Massachusetts attorneys who will take advantage of the option to be admitted in New Hampshire.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer