Legal Opinion
In Re Sackman
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided August 12, 1982PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
This ethics case presents a challenge both to the constitutionality and the wisdom of part of R.1:21-1(a). The challenged portion requires out-of-state attorneys to maintain their princi pal office in New Jersey. Attorneys who live in New Jersey need only a “bona fide” office. We do not reach the constitutional question. Exercising our plenary power over the practice of law, we have decided that henceforth all licensed New Jersey attorneys shall be treated alike, whether they live here or not. The only requirement for both, in order to practice in New Jersey, shall be that they maintain a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Hicklin v. OrbeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Salorio v. GlaserSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- In re GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bach v. PatakiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Tolchin v. Supreme Court of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Bach v. PatakiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- State v. BallardNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
- Tolchin v. Supreme Court of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.