OPINION 94-104

SUBJECT: Is an attorney authorized to have an office in Philadelphia for the practice of Immigration Law as a sole practitioner for the purpose of interviewing clients and preparing cases on their behalf when that attorney is not licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

It is the OPINION of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee that an attorney practicing AImmigration Law@ in Pennsylvania, without being admitted to practice before the Bar or the Courts of Pennsylvania, is guilty of the Unauthorized Practice of Law citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Ginsburg v. Kovrak, 139 A.2d 889 (1958), in which the Court upheld, under the predecessor to 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2524, an injunction against the Defendant that enjoined him from practicing law or advertising his practice of law in spite of the fact that the Defendant was admitted to practice law before the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania but not before the Court of Pennsylvania, even though the Defendant claimed that he only practiced federal questions such as tax law.