907 F. Supp. 2d 252
N.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff Ekaterina Schoenefeld challenges New York Judiciary Law § 470 as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection, and Commerce Clause.
- Plaintiff, a nonresident attorney, is licensed in NY, NJ, and CA, and resides in New Jersey; § 470 requires an in-state office to practice in NY.
- February 2010 Order dismissed many claims but allowed § 470 Privileges and Immunities challenges to proceed against remaining defendants.
- The action was moved to Northern District for convenience; both parties sought summary judgment on § 470 claims.
- Statutory history traces § 470 to 1862 and its evolution from a residency rule to an in-state office requirement.
- Court adopts heightened scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and grants plaintiff summary judgment confirming § 470 unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 470 burdens nonresidents under the Privileges and Immunities Clause | Schoenefeld argues § 470 discriminates based on residency to practice law in NY. | Defendants contend § 470 is an office requirement, not residency, and thus not subject to P&I scrutiny. | Yes; § 470 infringes P&I and is unconstitutional. |
| Whether the discrimination is justified by substantial state interests | The statute has no substantial state justification for disadvantaging nonresidents. | The interests include service of process, discipline, and availability for proceedings. | No substantial interest sufficient to justify discrimination. |
| Whether § 470 bears a substantial relation to any asserted state interests | Even if interests exist, § 470 is not closely related to them and uses overly burdensome means. | Section 470 is tailored to ensure contact by the court, clients, and opponents. | No substantial relationship; violates P&I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court 1948) (fundamental interstate rights and procedures for nonresidents)
- Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (Supreme Court 1978) (fundamental rights and residency-based discrimination limits)
- Piper v. state of North Carolina, 470 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court 1985) (substantial reason and narrow tailoring under P&I; less restrictive means)
- Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641 (Supreme Court 1987) (office availability rationale; in-state office rule found irrational)
- Tolchin v. Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, 111 F.3d 1099 (3d Cir. 1997) (distinguishable office requirement case; equal application limits)
- Parnell v. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 110 F.3d 1077 (4th Cir. 1997) (pro hac vice sponsor cases; distinguishable from current office rule)
- Matter of Gordon, 48 N.Y.2d 266 (1979) (state may use less restrictive means to regulate attorneys)
- Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871) (residency-based licensing impact in-state commerce)
- Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 1978) (nonresident employment preference invalid)
- United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cnty. & Vicinity v. Mayor & Council of City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (Supreme Court 1984) (fundamental right to pursue a common calling)