New York Judiciary Law Section 470 requires any attorney admitted in New York who lives in another state to maintain a physical office inside New York for the transaction of law business. The statute is still in force as of mid-2026, the Second Circuit has upheld it against constitutional challenge, and a bill to repeal it has passed the state Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly.
What the Statute Requires
The law reads: “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.”1FindLaw. New York Judiciary Law Section 470 By its terms it addresses attorneys residing in an adjoining state — New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Vermont — but in practice it is applied to any New York-admitted lawyer who lives outside the state and wants to practice here.
When the Second Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals confirmed in 2015 that the statute “requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical law office in New York.”2New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Schoenefeld v State of New York, 25 N.Y.3d 22 A P.O. box or a residential address in a neighboring state will not satisfy it. Something physical, inside New York, is the baseline.
What Counts as a Sufficient Office
The statute itself says nothing about the size, type, or staffing of the required office, and no court or bar authority has drawn a clear line. That leaves attorneys working from guesswork, especially as remote practice has become normal.
The clearest guidance comes from a 2016 trial court decision, Chupack v. Gomez. The court found that a nonresident attorney met the requirement by maintaining access to a desk, telephone, fax, and computer at a Brooklyn address where staff could accept service of process. The court also credited the attorney’s membership in the New York City Bar Association’s Virtual Law Firm program, which supplied a physical address for mail and service, conference rooms, and telephone services. As the court put it, “nothing in the statute states the size or type of office to be maintained.”3NYC Bar. Recent Developments in Courts’ Interpretations of Judiciary Law Section 470
A 2019 New York City Bar ethics opinion concluded that an attorney may use a virtual law office address as the principal office address for advertising, provided the virtual office “qualifies as an office for the transaction of law business under New York’s Judiciary Law.”4NYC Bar. Formal Opinion 2019-2: Use of a Virtual Law Office by New York Attorneys The opinion stops short of saying whether any particular virtual arrangement qualifies.
The NYC Bar operates its own Virtual Law Office program, offering members a Manhattan address at 43 West 43rd Street for $75 per month, with telephone answering available for an additional $70 per month. It provides mail collection and forwarding and a physical location where service of process can potentially be accepted. The Bar does not guarantee that enrollment satisfies Section 470.5NYC Bar. Virtual Law Firm Program
The practical takeaway: an address capable of accepting service, with at least some means of transacting business from the location, is the floor demonstrated in the case law. A purely paper address with nothing behind it has never been tested in the attorney’s favor.
What Happens If You Don’t Comply
For years, the appellate departments disagreed about the consequences of practicing without a compliant office. The Court of Appeals resolved that split in February 2019 in Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Cheyne Specialty Finance Fund L.P. The court held that a Section 470 violation does not render the noncompliant attorney’s legal actions a “nullity.” Drawing on Dunn v. Eickhoff, which held that even a disbarred attorney’s prior acts are not automatically void, the court reasoned it would be “incongruous” to void the work of a duly admitted lawyer merely for lacking the right office.6FindLaw. Arrowhead Capital Finance v Cheyne Specialty Finance Fund
Under Arrowhead, a party on the receiving end of a Section 470 objection can cure the problem by having compliant counsel enter an appearance or by applying for admission pro hac vice. Trial courts have discretion to fashion remedies based on actual prejudice. The lawyer remains exposed to disciplinary action, so compliance still matters, but the client’s case is no longer at risk of dismissal.
Why the Requirement Exists
Section 470 dates to 1909, when New York required attorneys to be state residents. Section 470 was carved out as an exception for lawyers in adjoining states, and the physical office was meant to give opposing parties and courts a reliable place to serve legal papers on an out-of-state lawyer.7New York State Bar Association. Repeal of Section 470 Passes Legislature, Heads to Governor’s Desk The residency requirement itself was struck down by the Court of Appeals in 1979 in Matter of Gordon, but Section 470 was never cleaned up to match, which is why it now reads as a freestanding burden rather than an accommodation.8Justia. Schoenefeld v State of New York
New York also has a separate mechanism for serving nonresident attorneys. Under 22 NYCRR 520.13, bar applicants who neither reside nor work full-time in New York must designate the clerk of the Appellate Division as their agent for service. Service is accomplished by delivering duplicate copies of process to the clerk with a $25 fee, and the clerk forwards one copy to the attorney by certified mail.9New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. 22 CRR-NY 520.13 Critics argue that this rule, together with the CPLR’s service provisions, already covers the ground Section 470 was written to cover.
Is the Statute Constitutional?
Yes, as the law currently stands. Ekaterina Schoenefeld, a New York-licensed attorney practicing from New Jersey, challenged Section 470 under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The district court struck the statute down in 2011, but the Second Circuit reversed in April 2016, holding that a Privileges and Immunities challenge requires proof the law was enacted with a protectionist purpose to favor residents, and that Section 470’s origins pointed instead to a service-of-process mechanism that placed resident and nonresident attorneys on equal footing.10FindLaw. Schoenefeld v Schneiderman The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 17, 2017.11Supreme Court of the United States. Schoenefeld v Schneiderman, No. 16-780 Section 470 is enforceable until the legislature repeals it or a new challenge succeeds on different grounds.
Where Repeal Stands
Both the New York State Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association have called for repeal. The NYSBA House of Delegates approved a repeal resolution in January 2019, and the NYC Bar’s committees have issued and reissued supporting reports, most recently in April 2026.12NYC Bar. Support for Repealing Judiciary Law 470 The arguments: the service-of-process rationale has been overtaken by the CPLR, 22 NYCRR 520.13, e-filing, and virtual court proceedings; the overhead of maintaining unused office space falls hardest on solo and small-firm practitioners and limits access to counsel in underserved parts of the state; and Section 470 objections have been deployed as delay tactics even after Arrowhead.13New York State Bar Association. NYSBA Memorandum No. 19-A
Repeal has come close before and failed. In 2023, both houses passed a repeal bill (A.2218/S.3261); Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed it on December 22, 2023.14NYC Bar. Letter to Governor Hochul Urging Repeal of Judiciary Law 470 In 2025, Senate Bill S2422 passed the Senate 60-1 on March 10, 2025, but did not clear the Assembly before the session ended.15New York State Bar Association. NYSBA 2025 Government Relations End-of-Year Update
The current vehicle is S.9793, introduced by Senator Luis R. Sepúlveda on April 6, 2026. It cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee 17-0 (with two voting aye with reservations) and passed the full Senate 58-2 on May 28, 2026. It has been delivered to the Assembly, where it sits in the Judiciary Committee. The companion bill, A.3849, is sponsored by Assemblymember David I. Weprin.16New York State Senate. Senate Bill S9793 Until the Assembly acts and the governor signs, the physical office requirement remains the law, and nonresident attorneys practicing in New York need an in-state office that can at minimum receive service and support the transaction of legal business.