This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and agency rules can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current requirements. The author and publisher are not responsible for actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- National overview: At the 2013 Midyear Meeting, the American Bar Association House of Delegates approved Resolution 107A.
- National overview: The resolution formally amended ABA Model Rule 5.5(d) concerning unauthorized and multijurisdictional legal practice.
- National overview: The policy change acknowledged the globalization of law by permitting foreign lawyers to work as in-house counsel within the United States.
- National overview: Foreign in-house counsel cannot independently advise on U.S. law unless they base that guidance on advice from a licensed U.S. attorney.
- National overview: A companion measure, Resolution 107B, established a formal registration requirement for foreign attorneys working in-house.
- State level: Because the American Bar Association issues advisory model rules, individual states must independently adopt these changes to make them binding law.
- State level: At the time the ABA passed the 2013 resolution, seven states already expressly allowed foreign lawyers to work as in-house counsel for domestic offices.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
During the 2013 Midyear Meeting, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates passed a significant measure regarding multijurisdictional legal practice. Known as ABA Resolution 107A, this policy addressed the growing globalization of legal services and established a structured framework for foreign lawyers operating inside the United States.
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 developed the proposal. Before this resolution, the national model rules lacked explicit guidance on foreign attorneys serving as corporate counsel, creating regulatory uncertainty for international companies and their legal departments.
Amendment to the ABA Model Rule 5.5 framework
Resolution 107A formally amended Rule 5.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This specific section of the model rules governs the unauthorized practice of law and outlines the boundaries for multijurisdictional practice. The 2013 amendment established that foreign lawyers possess limited authority to work as in-house counsel in the United States.
To maintain professional standards, the rule imposes a strict limitation on legal advice regarding domestic matters. Foreign in-house counsel may not provide advice on U.S. law unless they base that guidance directly on the advice of a lawyer who holds a valid license in the appropriate U.S. jurisdiction.
Registration requirements under Resolution 107B
Alongside the primary amendment, the House of Delegates approved a companion measure designated as Resolution 107B. This related policy requires foreign lawyers working as in-house counsel to formally register with the appropriate regulatory authority.
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 noted that formal registration ensures these attorneys remain identifiable, subject to active monitoring, and professionally accountable for their conduct while employed in the United States.
State adoption and enforcement of the model rule
The American Bar Association sets model policies, but it does not create binding federal or state law. The rules established by Resolution 107A only take effect when an individual state supreme court or state bar authority chooses to adopt them. Similar to other historical issues addressed by the ABA, the model rule serves as a foundation for state-level regulation rather than a national mandate.
At the time the ABA passed the resolution in February 2013, seven states already expressly allowed foreign lawyers to work as in-house counsel for the U.S. offices of their clients. Following the 2013 Midyear Meeting, other jurisdictions gained a clear, standardized model framework to evaluate and implement their own registration systems for international attorneys.
