Rule 8.5 Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law

COMMENTS:

[1]In modern practice lawyers frequently act outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice, either in another state or outside the United States. In doing so, they remain subject to the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice. If their activity in another jurisdiction is substantial and continuous, it may constitute practice of law in that jurisdiction. See Rule 5.5 of these Rules.

[2]If the rules of professional conduct in the two jurisdictions differ, principles of conflict of laws may apply. Similar problems can arise when a lawyer is licensed to practice in more than one jurisdiction.

[3]Where the lawyer is licensed to practice law in two jurisdictions which impose conflicting obligations, applicable rules of choice of law may govern the situation. A related problem arises with respect to practice before a federal tribunal, where the general authority of the states to regulate practice within their borders may conflict with the authority of federal tribunals to regulate practice before them.

[4]This Rule also applies to lawyers practicing in this jurisdiction on a pro hac vice basis.

[5]The purpose of this Rule is to establish that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court (“the Board”)have disciplinary jurisdiction over any attorney who engages in the practice of law within the state with respect to enforcement of its rules governing acts and omissions that may constitute grounds for discipline. Under this Rule, an attorney who is not licensed to practice in this state but engages in the practice of law in the state, and commits acts or omissions that may constitute grounds for discipline, is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and the Board. Extension of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction to other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in the State of Hawai‘i is for the protection of the public. Reciprocal enforcement of a jurisdiction's disciplinary findings and sanctions will further advance the purposes of this Rule.