Schoenefeld v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Parties | Ekaterina SCHOENEFELD, Respondent, v. STATE of New York et al., Defendants, and Eric T. Schneiderman, as Attorney General for the State of New York, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger, Barbara D. Underwood and Andrea Oser of counsel), for appellants.
Ekaterina Schoenefeld, Princeton, NJ, respondent pro se.
Meghan Boone, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., for Michael H. Ansell and others, amici curiae.
Ronald B. McGuire, New York City, amicus curiae.
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked us to set forth the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy the statutory directive that nonresident attorneys maintain an office within the State “for the transaction of law business” under Judiciary Law § 470. We hold that the statute requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York.
Plaintiff Ekaterina Schoenefeld is a New Jersey resident who was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 2006. Schoenefeld is also admitted to practice in New Jersey and maintains her only law office in Princeton. According to the complaint, in 2007, Schoenefeld attended a continuing legal education class entitled Starting Your Own Practice, which was offered by the New York State Bar Association in New York City. There, she learned of the statutory requirement that nonresident attorneys must maintain an office within New York in order to practice in this State. Specifically, under Judiciary Law § 470, “[a] person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state.”
Schoenefeld commenced this action in federal district court in July 2008, alleging that Judiciary Law § 470 was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to nonresident attorneys in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, § 2).1 She alleged that she was unable to practice in the State, despite her compliance with all admission requirements, because she does not maintain an office in New York. She further maintained that there was no substantial state interest served by the office requirement, which was not applicable to New York resident attorneys.
The district court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and held that section 470 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause (see Schoenefeld v. New York, 907 F.Supp.2d 252, 266 [N.D.N.Y.2011] ). The court determined that the office requirement implicated nonresident attorneys' fundamental right to practice law. The court then rejected the state interests proffered by defendants as insubstantial and found that, in any event, the statute did not bear a substantial relationship to the interests asserted as there were less restrictive means of accomplishing those interests.
The Second Circuit determined that the constitutionality of the statute was dependent upon the interpretation of the law office requirement (see Schoenefeld v. New York, 748 F.3d 464, 467 [2d Cir.2014] ). The court observed that the requirements that must be met by nonresident attorneys in order to practice law in New York reflect an important state interest and implicate significant policy issues. The court therefore certified the following question for our review: “Under New York Judiciary Law § 470, which mandates that a nonresident attorney maintain an ‘office for the transaction of law business' within the state of New York, what are the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy that mandate?” (Schoenefeld, 748 F.3d at 471 ). We accepted certification (23 N.Y.3d 941, 987 N.Y.S.2d 593, 10 N.E.3d 1148 [2014] ) and, as noted above, we interpret the statute as requiring nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical law office within the State.
It is well settled that, where the language of a statute is clear, it should be construed according to its plain terms (see Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v. Silva, 91 N.Y.2d 98, 107, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689 N.E.2d 1373 [1997] ). We have also held that “no rule of construction gives the court discretion to declare the intent of the law when the words are unequivocal” (Raritan, 91 N.Y.2d at 107, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689 N.E.2d 1373 [internal quotation marks, citation and emphasis omitted] ).
Here, the statute appears to presuppose a residency requirement for the practice of law in New York State. It then makes an exception, by allowing nonresident attorneys to practice law if they keep an “office for the transaction of law business” in this State.2 By its plain terms, then, the statute requires nonresident attorneys practicing in New York to maintain a physical law office here.
However, recognizing that there may be a constitutional flaw if the statute is interpreted as written, defendants urge us to construe the statute narrowly in accordance with the doctrine of constitutional avoidance (see Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 20 N.Y.3d 586, 593, 965 N.Y.S.2d 61, 987 N.E.2d 621 [2013] [] ). In particular, they suggest that the provision can be read merely to require nonresident attorneys to have some type of physical presence for the receipt of service—either an address or the appointment of an agent within the State. They maintain that interpreting the statute in this way would generally fulfill the legislative purpose and would ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The statute itself is silent regarding the issue of service. When the statute was initially enacted in 1862, however, it did contain a service provision. At that time, it essentially required that an attorney who maintained an office in New York, but lived in an adjoining state, could practice in this State's courts and that service, which could ordinarily be made upon a New York attorney at his residence, could be made upon the nonresident attorney through mail addressed to his office (see L. 1862, ch. 43). Upon the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1877, the provision was codified at section 60 of the Code. In 1909, the provision was divided into two parts—a service provision, which remained at section 60 of the Code, and a law office requirement, which became section 470 of the Judiciary Law. Notably, after we invalidated a New York residency requirement for attorneys in Matter of Gordon v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 48 N.Y.2d 266, 422 N.Y.S.2d 641, 397 N.E.2d 1309 (1979) the legislature amended several provisions of the Judiciary Law and the CPLR to conform to that holding (L. 1985, ch. 226). Section 470, however, was not one of the provisions amended and has remained virtually unchanged since 1909.
Even...
To continue reading
Request your trial