Gordon, Application of

• Decision Date: 29 March 1979
• Citation: 414 N.Y.S.2d 692,67 A.D.2d 215
• Parties: Application of Harry G. GORDON for Admission as Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law in the State of New York under the Provisions of CPLR 9404.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 692

414 N.Y.S.2d 692

67 A.D.2d 215

Application of Harry G. GORDON for Admission as Attorney and

Counsellor-at-Law in the State of New York under

the Provisions of CPLR 9404.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1979.

Harry Glen Gordon, petitioner pro se.

Robert E. Keegan, New York City, Secretary of the Committee on Character and Fitness, for respondent.

Before EVANS, J. P., and FEIN, SULLIVAN, LUPIANO and BLOOM, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks an order admitting him to practice law in this State without the certification of the Committee on Character and Fitness which is required by CPLR 9404.

Since May 1975 petitioner has been working in the Legal Division of Western Electric Company (a subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph), which has corporate headquarters in New York. After working in New York City for over two years, while residing in New Jersey, petitioner took and passed the July 1977 New York State bar examination. The impetus to seek admission in New York was provided by an Advisory Opinion issued by the Unlawful Practice of the Law Committee of the New York State Bar Association, the effect of which was to limit the law practice of in-house counsel in New York based companies. In September 1977, petitioner was transferred to Western Electric's office in North Carolina, where he still works and in which state he and his family reside. After filing his application for admission to the New York State bar, he was advised by the Committee on Character and Fitness that he did not meet the residency requirements for admission because he was not an actual resident of, or full time employee in, New York State for the six months immediately preceding the submission of his application for admission to practice. ^* Petitioner then instituted this proceeding, arguing that since the corporation's home office and the office of its General Counsel, with which he has regular contact, are in New York, there is sufficient nexus to New York, so as to meet the requirement that he work in New York and that since he has already met the residency requirement for taking the bar examination, it is unreasonable to impose further requirements.

Admission to the New York Bar is not an honorarium, but is granted to those who have demonstrated, either through actual residency or actual employment here, a sufficient nexus to the State "to serve the compelling state interest to prevent misconduct by itinerant or non-resident practitioners in their relations with clients or litigants in the New York Courts." (Tang v. Appellate Division of New York Supreme Court, First Dept., 373 F.Supp. 800, 801, aff'd 487 F.2d 138.) The State requires a demonstration of intent to live or work here, so that it can be assured that the applicant will be amenable to the supervision of its courts. (See, Matter of Tang, 39 A.D.2d 357, 333 N.Y.S.2d 964.) It is not unreasonable to insist that the...