748 F.3d 464
2d Cir.2014Background
- Schoenefeld, a multi-state-licensed solo practitioner, challenges NY Judiciary Law § 470, which requires nonresidents to maintain a New York office for practicing law.
- Section 470 provides that a person admitted to practice in NY courts may practice there if their office for law business is within NY, while residing in an adjoining state.
- Schoenefeld resides in Princeton, NJ, with a New Jersey law office, and has never represented NY state court clients; she alleges § 470 burdens nonresidents and violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Schoenefeld, finding § 470 unconstitutional as discriminating against nonresidents without substantial state justifications or a substantial relationship to any asserted interest.
- The Second Circuit certified a controlling state-law issue to the NY Court of Appeals because resolution hinges on the meaning of “office for the transaction of law business” under § 470 and its relation to NY state interests.
- The panel ordered certification and retained jurisdiction pending NY Court of Appeals’ guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What are the minimum requirements of NY Judiciary Law § 470’s nonresident “office” requirement? | Schoenefeld argues the statute discriminates against nonresidents by forcing a costly, physical NY office. | New York asserts the office requirement serves service, adjudication, and administrative needs and may be interpreted narrowly. | Certify the question to the NY Court of Appeals to determine minimum office requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (P&I Clause allows States to treat nonresidents when essential to national privileges)
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (P&I Clause requires substantial reason and relation between discrimination and objective)
- Statharos v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n, 198 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1999) (states that state-law constructions are controlling sources for certification decisions)
- Portalatin v. Graham, 624 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (certification principles for state-law questions)
- Tinelli v. Redl, 199 F.3d 603 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting limits on when to certify state-law questions)