| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | A 50-state (plus D.C. and U.S. territories) reference on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in the United States: for each jurisdiction, the controlling statute/court rule, classification (Criminal Only, Civil Only, or Both), last-updated date, and related exceptions (e.g., multijurisdictional safe harbors), plus the enforcing/investigating authority (bar association, judicial committee, or executive agency), a link to that authority, and how enforcement works in practice. Last Updated: July 1, 2026. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Information Regarding the UPL Statute | Information Regarding the UPL Enforcing / Investigating Authority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | State | Classification | Citation / Notes | Last Updated (Year) | Court Rule Notes | Official Authority Link | Authority that Defines UPL | Primary Investigator(s) / Enforcer(s) - Category | Name of Primary Investigator(s) / Enforcer(s) | Enforcer(s) / Investigator(s) - notes | Structure Explanation | Last Checked | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Alabama | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Ala. Code §34-3-1; §34-3-7 – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court injunctive authority. | 1931 / 1949 | Ala. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 adopts the ABA Model Rule verbatim, with standard multijurisdictional practice exceptions. No standalone UPL court rule exists beyond §34-3-1 and Rule 5.5. | https://www.alabar.org/about/committees/upl/ | Supreme Court of Alabama | Bar Association | Alabama State Bar (Disciplinary Commission) | Delegated enforcement. | Court defines rules but delegates all enforcement to the State Bar's Disciplinary Commission | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Alaska | Both (Criminal & Civil) | AS §08.08.230 – Class A misdemeanor; Alaska Bar Rule 63 (defines practice of law for purposes of criminal statute); Bar Rules also provide injunctive authority. | 2019 / Bar Rule 63 adopted in 1989 | Alaska Bar R. 63 cross-references AS §08.08.230 and defines 'practice of law' for UPL purposes. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA Model Rule, with standard safe harbors (litigation, ADR, in-house counsel) and no significant departures. | https://alaskabar.org/ | Alaska Supreme Court | Bar Association | Alaska Bar Association | Delegated under court rule. | Court sets rules and delegates enforcement authority to the Bar Association | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
6 | American Samoa | Criminal Only | A.S.C.A. §31.0104 – Misdemeanor | 1980 | American Samoa has little statutory guidance on UPL; A.S.C.A. §31.0104 is the only statute or court rule on point and classifies UPL as a misdemeanor. | https://asbar.org/code-annotated/31-0104-unauthorized-practice-of-law-penalty/ | The High Court of American Samoa | Executive Branch (Attorney General) | American Samoa Attorney General's Office | AG authority - true criminal statute | Since A.S.C.A. §31.0104 is a true criminal statute, the AG has authority to investigate / enforce. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Arizona | Civil/Court-rule only | Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31.2 – Unauthorized practice; R. 31.1 – Authorized practice; civil/injunctive authority. Note: Arizona has not codified a separate criminal UPL misdemeanor statute; enforcement is through court rules and contempt. | 2021 | Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31–33 are among the most detailed UPL rules in the country. R. 31 defines 'practice of law' and 'unauthorized practice,' and R. 31(d) lists 30+ exemptions (e.g., document preparers, tax practitioners, ADR neutrals). R. 31.1 (eff. 2022) permits Licensed Paraprofessionals to provide limited legal services independently — a major departure from Model Rule 5.5. No criminal UPL statute since its 1985 sunset; enforcement runs solely through R. 31–33. | https://www.azcourts.gov/rules/ | Arizona Supreme Court | Bar Association | State Bar of Arizona (under court supervision) | Court exclusive authority. | Court maintains exclusive authority but operates through State Bar under direct supervision | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Arkansas | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Ark. Code §16-22-501 – Class A misdemeanor (Class D felony for repeat offenders); §16-22-208 – Courts may enjoin; Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 7. | 2025 | Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 7 creates the Committee on UPL and sets its investigative procedures. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with standard exceptions. The Committee handles civil enforcement only; criminal prosecution proceeds under §16-22-501. | https://arcourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/boards-committees/committee-unauthorized-practice-law/home/faq | Arkansas Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Committee on UPL (appointed by Supreme Court) | Civil remedies via committee. | Court appoints special committee that handles civil enforcement remedies | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
9 | California | Criminal only | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§6125–6133 – Misdemeanor | 2019 | Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (eff. 2018) departs from the ABA model and omits its standard safe harbors; multijurisdictional practice is instead governed by State Bar Rules 9.40–9.48 (e.g., registered in-house counsel, foreign legal consultant). UPL is defined primarily by statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§6125–6133) rather than court rule. Bus. & Prof. Code §6034.1 governs regulatory sandboxes. | https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/concerns-about-attorney/avoid-legal-services-fraud/unauthorized-practice-law | California Supreme Court | Bar Association | California State Bar | California State Bar is the primary intake and investigative body, and they work with law enforcement to investigate UPL complaints. | Court defines UPL via case law, not by statutory definition. State Bar is investigative body. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Colorado | Civil only | CO ST RCP Rule 232.2; 232.14 -- Injunctive relief | 2022 | C.R.C.P. 232.19 governs UPL proceedings before the Supreme Court. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 closely follows the ABA model but adds detailed restrictions on employing disbarred, suspended, or disability-inactive lawyers. | https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/supreme-court-advisory-committee-practice-law | Colorado Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Practice of Law | Direct court agency. | Court operates through its own direct agency (Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Practice of Law, not through bar association) | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Connecticut | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Conn. Gen. Stat. §51‑88 – Felony or misdemeanor (if admitted in a different state and in good standing) plus injunctive authority. | 2013 | Sup. Ct. Gen. R. §2-44A defines UPL and lists exemptions — broader than most states' — covering lay representatives in administrative hearings, labor arbitration, form document sellers, and court form assistance. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model for licensed attorneys. | https://www.jud.ct.gov/sgc/rules.htm#8 | Connecticut Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Judicial Branch’s Statewide Grievance Committee, which has a UPL subcommittee operating under Practice Book provisions | Direct court agency. | Court-created grievance committee with UPL subcommittee handles enforcement | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Delaware | Civil Only | Delaware Supreme Court R. 62. | 2025 | Del. Sup. Ct. R. 62 authorizes the ODC to investigate UPL complaints. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Beyond R. 62, Delaware relies on the court's inherent authority and contempt powers rather than a detailed definitional rule. | https://courts.delaware.gov/odc/ | Delaware Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Investigates under court rule. | Court delegates investigation authority to disciplinary counsel office | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
13 | District of Columbia | Both (Criminal & Civil) | D.C. Ct. of Appeals R. 49 – Misdemeanor (contempt); Bar Committee civil authority. | 2026 | Ct. of Appeals R. 49(d) establishes the UPL Committee's authority and investigative procedures and is among the most comprehensive UPL schemes in the nation. RPC 5.5 departs from the ABA model, providing only that a lawyer may not practice where doing so violates that jurisdiction's rules and may not assist a non-lawyer's unauthorized practice — with no safe harbors, temporary-practice provisions, or in-house counsel carve-out. | https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/dc-bar-admissions/committee-on-unauthorized-practice-of-law | DC Court of Appeals | Bar Association | UPL Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to Bar Association UPL Committee. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Florida | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Fla. Stat. §454.23 – Third-degree felony; Fla. Bar Integr. R. 10-7.1 and 10-7.2 – Injunctive and contempt authority. | 2004 / 2011 | Bar Integration R. ch. 10 is Florida's comprehensive UPL enforcement framework, establishing the UPL Department, grievance committees, referee procedures, and sanctions. R. 10-2.1 defines UPL; R. 10-7.1 and Fla. Stat. §454.23 set sanctions (civil injunction, criminal referral). Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4-5.5 governs multijurisdictional practice. Florida also permits Authorized House Counsel and, under its Foreign Legal Consultancy Rule, allows foreign lawyers to advise on the law of their home jurisdiction. | https://www.floridabar.org/rules/upl/ | Florida Supreme Court | Bar Association | The Florida Bar (UPL Department) | Court-adopted rules; delegated enforcement. | Constitutional authority with court-adopted rules delegating enforcement to Bar's UPL Department | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Georgia | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Ga. Code §15‑19‑51; §15‑19‑56; §15‑19‑58 – Misdemeanor and injunctive remedies. | 1931 | §15-19-57 gives the State Bar investigative authority over UPL complaints, and Bar Rule 14-1.2 authorizes its Standing Committee on UPL to issue advisory opinions and investigate complaints; injunctive relief is available through superior courts. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with standard exceptions. | https://www.gabar.org/programs/unlicensed-practice-of-law | Supreme Court of Georgia | Bar Association | State Bar of Georgia (Standing Committee on UPL) | Delegated. | Court delegates enforcement to State Bar's standing UPL committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Guam | Both (Criminal & Civil) | GU ST. §9A106; §9A203 – Misdemeanor; Bar may seek injunction. | 2024 | §9A203 establishes the Bar of Guam Ethics Committee's authority over UPL investigations. §9A106 exempts attorneys licensed elsewhere who are temporarily in Guam on a particular matter, and Admin. Prac. R. 9.01 authorizes other temporary practice. On June 24, 2026, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands signed a reciprocity agreement letting attorneys licensed in either jurisdiction practice in the other without an additional bar exam. | https://guambar.org/about-us/discipline | Supreme Court of Guam | Bar Association | Guam Bar Association Ethics Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to Bar Association Ethics Committee. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Hawaii | Both (Criminal & Civil) | HRS §605‑14; § 605-15.2; § 605-17 – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court civil jurisdiction. | 2001 | Sup. Ct. R. 2.4 establishes the Disciplinary Board and governs disciplinary authority. RPC 5.5 (amended 2022) departs substantially from the ABA model: it omits multijurisdictional safe harbors and adds a flat no-contact rule for disbarred or suspended attorneys. No separate UPL definitional rule exists beyond these. | https://www.courts.state.hi.us/legal_references/attorneys/hlffcp/office_of_disciplinary_counsel | Hawaii Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Disciplinary Board of the Hawai`i Supreme Court - Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Court agency. | Court operates through its own disciplinary board, which houses the ODC | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Idaho | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Idaho Code §3‑420 – Misdemeanor; Bar Rule 802 permits injunctions. | 1925 / 1998 | Bar Comm'n Rule 802 authorizes the UPL Committee to investigate complaints, issue advisory opinions, refer matters for injunction, and issue cease-and-desist orders, under a detailed complaint procedure. IRPC 5.5 departs from the ABA model: it drops the office/holding-out prohibition, compresses four temporary-practice safe harbors into three (no standalone ADR carve-out), and reduces the in-house counsel provision to a single clause. | https://isb.idaho.gov/bar-counsel/unauthorized-practice-of-law/ | Idaho Supreme Court | Bar Association | Idaho State Bar (UPL Committee) | Delegated. | Court delegates enforcement to State Bar's UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Illinois | Both (Criminal & Civil) | 705 ILCS 205/1 – Class A misdemeanor; AG and courts may enjoin. | 2015 | Sup. Ct. R. 751–780 are the comprehensive attorney discipline rules; R. 756 addresses UPL reporting and R. 779 addresses UPL proceedings. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Illinois has no standalone UPL enforcement rule — all UPL matters flow through the ARDC disciplinary framework. | https://www.iardc.org/ | Illinois Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) | Delegated. | Court delegates to Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (specialized agency) | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Indiana | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Ind. Code §33‑43‑2‑1 – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court sanctions. | 2004 | R. Admis. Disc. 23 establishes the Disciplinary Commission and governs UPL complaints. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with no significant departures; criminal sanctions rely primarily on §33-43-2-1. | https://www.in.gov/courts/discipline/ | Indiana Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Disciplinary Commission | Delegated. | Court delegates enforcement to independent disciplinary commission | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Iowa | Civil Only | I.C.A. Rule 32:5.5 - UPL; IA Ct. R. 37.2 - Injunctive authority | 2021 | Ct. R. 35.1 and 37.1 establish the Attorney Disciplinary Board and UPL Commission, respectively; R. 38 governs UPL proceedings, including investigative authority and civil injunction procedures. R. Prof. Conduct 32:5.5 follows the ABA model. | https://www.iowacourts.gov/opr/about-opr/commission-on-unauthorized-practice-of-law | Iowa Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Attorney Disciplinary Board / UPL Commission | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary board with separate UPL commission | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Kansas | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Kan. Stat. 50-65,142 – Misdemeanor and civil enforcement. | 2017 | Sup. Ct. R. 225 governs attorney discipline generally, and UPL matters are handled through the Disciplinary Administrator's office. Kansas has a separate UPL statute (K.S.A. 50-6,142, enacted 2017). R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. | https://kscourts.gov/Attorneys/Office-of-Disciplinary-Administration/Office-of-the-Disciplinary-Administrator | Kansas Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys | Delegated. | Court delegates to specialized discipline board (through Disciplinary Administrator) | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Kentucky | Both (Criminal & Civil) | KRS §524.130 – Misdemeanor | 2022 | SCR 3.460 details UPL complaint procedures, investigative authority, cease-and-desist agreements, and referral for injunction. SCR 3.130(5.5) follows the ABA model with standard temporary-practice exceptions. | https://kybar.org/For-Members/Office-of-Bar-Counsel/Unauthorized-Practice-of-Law | Kentucky Supreme Court | Bar Association | Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (KBA) | Delegated by court. | Court delegates to Kentucky Bar Association's UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Louisiana | Both (Criminal & Civil) | La. R.S. §37:213.1 – Misdemeanor plus injunctive authority. | 2016 | Louisiana's enforcement is mixed: the Disciplinary Board handles civil UPL matters, while criminal prosecution proceeds under La. Rev. Stat. §37:213. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model, with added commentary addressing specific multijurisdictional scenarios. | https://www.ladb.org/ | Louisiana Supreme Court | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Attorney Disciplinary Board & AG (for criminal) | Mixed—criminal under statute. | Mixed system: Disciplinary Board for civil matters, AG prosecutes criminal violations | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Maine | Both (Criminal & Civil) | 4 M.R.S. §807 – Misdemeanor; Board may seek injunction. | 2025 | Bar R. 5.5 authorizes the Board of Overseers to investigate UPL and seek injunctions. Maine does not use "felony"/"misdemeanor" terminology; UPL is classified as a Class E crime. | https://mebaroverseers.org/ | Maine Supreme Judicial Court | Judicial Branch | Board of Overseers of the Bar | Court agency. | Court operates through its Board of Overseers agency | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Maryland | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Bus. Occ. & Prof. §10‑601 – Misdemeanor; AGC civil enforcement. | 1989 | R. 19-701 through 19-709 (renumbered from the BU rules in 2022) govern UPL proceedings, the Attorney Grievance Commission's authority, and sanctions. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model, with added provisions for military spouse attorneys and foreign legal consultants. | https://www.mdcourts.gov/attygrievance | Supreme Court of Maryland | Judicial Branch | Attorney Grievance Commission | Delegated. | Court delegates to Attorney Grievance Commission | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Massachusetts | Both (Criminal & Civil) | M.G.L. ch. 221 §41 – Misdemeanor and SJC injunctive authority. | 2025 | SJC Rule 3:07 (R. Prof. Conduct 5.5) follows the ABA model but adds provisions for authorized house counsel registration (SJC Rule 3:01, §6). The Board of Bar Overseers' procedural rules (SJC Rule 4:01) govern UPL complaints; G.L. ch. 221, §46A sets the criminal penalty. | https://www.massbbo.org/ | Supreme Judicial Court | Bar Association | Board of Bar Overseers / Bar Counsel | Delegated. | Court delegates to Board of Bar Overseers with Bar Counsel prosecuting | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Michigan | Both (Criminal & Civil) | MCL §600.916 – Misdemeanor; courts may enjoin. | 2021 | Ct. R. 9.103 establishes the Attorney Grievance Commission's jurisdiction over UPL. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. A separate pro hac vice rule (MCR 8.126) was proposed for amendment in 2024 to clarify ADR proceedings, and the State Bar's UPL Committee issues informal ethics opinions on UPL questions. | https://www.agcmi.org/ | Michigan Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Attorney Grievance Commission | Delegated by court. | Court delegates to independent grievance commission | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Minnesota | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Minn. Stat. §481.02 – Gross misdemeanor; injunctive available. | 1999 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board's procedural rules govern UPL complaints. Minn. Stat. §481.02 contains one of the most detailed statutory lists of UPL exemptions nationally — 26+ carve-outs, including accountants, real estate brokers, and financial institutions. | https://lprb.mncourts.gov/ | Minnesota Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board | Delegated. | Court delegates to specialized professional responsibility board | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Mississippi | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Miss. Code §73‑3‑55 – Misdemeanor; disciplinary jurisdiction; Miss. Code §73‑3‑51 - injunctive authority (Miss. St. Bar Board of Commissioners). | 2006 | §73-3-51 authorizes the Board of Commissioners of the Mississippi State Bar (but not the Board of Bar Admissions) to seek an injunction. MRPC 5.5 follows the ABA model, with no notable departures. | https://www.msbar.org/ | Mississippi Supreme Court | Bar Association | Board of Commissioners of State Bar | Delegated. | Board of Commissioners can seek injunction | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Missouri | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Mo. R.S. §484.010 et seq. – Misdemeanor; Court injunctions. | 1939 | Sup. Ct. R. 4-5.5 follows the ABA model. §484.020 delegates authority to institute UPL suits to the attorney general, and the Chief Disciplinary Counsel handles UPL referrals. Bar Rule 8.105 lets registered out-of-state in-house counsel practice without bar admission — a significant safe harbor. | https://www.mochiefcounsel.org/ | Supreme Court of Missouri | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel | Delegated. | Court delegates to chief disciplinary counsel's office and attorney general | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Montana | Civil only | MCA §§37-61-201, 37-61-210 – Contempt of court; Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5. | 2009 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (amended 2020) follows the ABA model with standard temporary-practice exceptions. Montana has no standalone UPL enforcement rule; enforcement relies on disciplinary counsel's inherent authority under the court's supervisory power. | https://montanaodc.org/ | Montana Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary counsel office | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Nebraska | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Neb. Rev. Stat. §7‑101 – Misdemeanor; Neb Ct. R. § 3-1018 - Court injunction. | 1977 / 2008 | Ct. R. §3-1001 et seq. establish the Commission on Unauthorized Practice of Law — a dedicated body, separate from the general disciplinary body — and govern its composition, investigative authority, and injunction procedures. R. Prof. Conduct 3-505.5 follows the ABA model. | https://nebraskajudicial.gov/administration/attorneys/counsel-discipline | Nebraska Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Counsel for Discipline, Commission on Unauthorized Practice of Law | Delegated. | Court delegates to specialized counsel for discipline | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Nevada | Both (Criminal & Civil) | NRS §7.285 – Misdemeanor; Bar may enjoin. | 2024 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (adopted 2006) follows the ABA model with standard exceptions. NRS §7.285 creates escalating penalties — misdemeanor, then gross misdemeanor, then Category E felony — among the clearest graduated structures in the country. | https://nvbar.org/for-the-public/unauthorized-practice-of-law/ | Nevada Supreme Court | Bar Association | State Bar of Nevada (UPL Committee). District attorneys prosecute criminal UPL and that the State Bar provides a UPL complaint portal for the public. | Delegated. | Court delegates enforcement to State Bar's UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
35 | New Hampshire | Both (Criminal & Civil) | RSA 311:7a-f – civil authority; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 311:11 - misdemeanor (only applies to corporations) | 1996 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (amended 2018) follows the ABA model. The attorney general handles UPL investigations under RSA 311:7-b; RSA 311:7 provides the civil penalty and §311:11 the criminal penalty for corporations. No standalone UPL court rule exists, and court-rule elaboration on UPL's scope is minimal. | https://www.nhattyreg.org/ | New Hampshire Supreme Court | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Attorney Discipline Office | Delegated. | Court delegates to attorney discipline office, attorney general handles investigations | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
36 | New Jersey | Both (Criminal & Civil) | NJ ST 2C:21-22 – Fourth-degree crime (baseline); third-degree crime if false representation, benefit derived, or injury caused; OAE civil disciplinary authority. | 2014 | R. 1:22-2 governs the UPL Committee's jurisdiction over complaints. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 departs from the ABA model: New Jersey omits the standard temporary-practice safe harbors and instead requires pro hac vice admission for most out-of-state practice. The criminal statute (2C:21-22) is the primary penalty mechanism. | https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/supreme/supreme-court-committee#toc-committee-on-the-unauthorized-practice-of-law | NJ Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | UPL Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
37 | New Mexico | Civil Only | N.M. Stat. §36‑2‑28.1 and 28.2 – civil authority. | 2011 | R. Disc. 17-201 governs the Disciplinary Board's UPL authority. R. Prof. Conduct 16-505 (Rule 5.5) follows the ABA model. R. Admis. 15-308 permits licensed out-of-state in-house attorneys to register as Authorized House Counsel without full bar admission. | https://nmdisboard.org/ | New Mexico Supreme Court | Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Disciplinary Board / UPL Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary board with UPL committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
38 | New York | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Jud. Law §478; Jud. Law §476-a – Misdemeanor; attorney general/bar association injunctions. | 2010 | Ct. R. §1240.7 (2016) governs disciplinary committee procedures, including UPL referrals; each of the four Appellate Divisions has its own grievance committee. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 departs significantly from the ABA model, permitting broader temporary practice under an extensive Judiciary Law framework (§§478–486) that predates the model rules. | https://www.nycourts.gov/attorney-grievance-committees/unauthorized-practice-law | Appellate Divisions (judicial departments) | Bar Association, Local District Attorneys | Grievance/Attorney Disciplinary Committees; District Attorneys | Statutory + judicial hybrid. | Complex system: Each judicial department has committees, DAs prosecute statutory crimes | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
39 | North Carolina | Both (Criminal & Civil) | N.C.G.S. §84‑8 – Misdemeanor; Bar or district attorney may seek injunction. | 2011 | Bar R. Ch. 1, Subch. D, §.0200 sets out the Authorized Practice Committee's procedures, and the State Bar may seek civil penalties under §84-7. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. §84-2.1 provides one of the country's most detailed statutory UPL definitions, explicitly listing covered activities. | https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/unauthorized-practice-of-law/ | Supreme Court of North Carolina | Bar Association, Local District Attorneys | North Carolina State Bar (Authorized Practice Committee), district attorneys | Delegated authority via statute and court rule. | Court delegates via statute to State Bar's Authorized Practice Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
40 | North Dakota | Both (Criminal & Civil) | N.D.C.C. §27‑11‑01 – Misdemeanor; Bar civil authority. | 2001 | R. Lwyr. Disc. 2.1 establishes the Disciplinary Board's authority. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with no significant departures. | https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/committees/disciplinary-board | North Dakota Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Disciplinary Board | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary board | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Northern Mariana Islands | Criminal Only | 6 N. Mar. I. Code § 3115 – Misdemeanor | 2006 | The CNMI has very little statutory guidance on UPL; 6 N. Mar. I. Code §3115 is the only statute on point, with graduated penalties (up to 1 year/$2,000 for a first offense, up to 2 years/$5,000 for repeat offenses). On June 24, 2026, the CNMI and Guam signed a reciprocity agreement letting attorneys licensed in either jurisdiction practice in the other without an additional bar exam. | https://www.cnmioag.org/ | Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands | Executive Branch (Attorney General) | CNMI Office of the Attorney General | AG authority - true criminal statute | Since 6 N. Mar. I. Code § 3115 is a true criminal statute, the AG has authority to investigate / enforce. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Ohio | Both (Criminal & Civil) | R.C. §4705.01; §4705.07; §4705.99 – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court civil authority. | 2006 | Gov. Bar R. VII (amended Oct. 2024) is Ohio's comprehensive standalone UPL rule: it establishes the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, defines UPL, lists exemptions, and sets civil enforcement powers (injunction, civil penalty, AG referral). R.C. §4705.07 provides the civil statutory basis and §4705.99 provides the criminal statutory basis. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 applies to licensed attorneys. | https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/advisory/boards/upl/ | Supreme Court of Ohio | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Board on UPL, Attorney General can enforce injunctions | Shared civil/criminal enforcement. | Shared system: Board on UPL handles civil matters, AG can enforce injunctions | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Oklahoma | Civil Only | OK ST BAR RULES Art. 2 §7 – Bar Association UPL civil authority. | 1992 | St. Bar Rules Ch. 1, App. 1 and related rules govern the OBA UPL Committee's procedures. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Oklahoma is civil-enforcement-only: the Supreme Court has not authorized criminal UPL prosecution, so injunction and contempt are the only remedies. | https://www.okbar.org/ | Oklahoma Supreme Court | Bar Association | Oklahoma Bar Association (UPL Committee) | Delegated. | Court delegates to Oklahoma Bar Association's UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Oregon | Both (Criminal & Civil) | ORS §9.160 et seq.; §9.990 – Misdemeanor; OSB injunctive powers. | 2026 | RPC 5.5 (amended 2015) follows the ABA model with standard safe harbors. The OSB Rules of Procedure govern the UPL Committee's authority. | https://www.osbar.org/UPL/faq.html | Oregon Supreme Court | Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Oregon State Bar (UPL Committee); AG for criminal enforcement | Shared. | Shared enforcement: Bar UPL Committee for civil, AG for criminal prosecution | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Pennsylvania | Both (Criminal & Civil) | 42 Pa.C.S. §2524 – Misdemeanor plus injunctive remedy. | 1996 | Disc. Bd. Rule §93.63 governs the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's authority over UPL. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Admis. Rule 302 permits registered out-of-state in-house counsel to practice; 42 Pa.C.S. §2524 (last amended 1996) is the criminal penalty provision. | https://padisciplinaryboard.org/ | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | Judicial Branch | Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary counsel office | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Puerto Rico | Both (Criminal & Civil) | PR ST T. 4 §740; PR ST T. 4 § 782 – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court discipline. | 1939 / 2006 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with standard safe harbors and no significant departures. PR ST T. 4 §782 provides the criminal penalty. | https://www.ramajudicial.pr/ | Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | Bar Association | Puerto Rico Bar Association | Delegated. | Court delegates to Bar Association. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
47 | Rhode Island | Both (Criminal & Civil) | R.I. Gen. Laws §11‑27‑1 et seq. – Misdemeanor; Supreme Court discipline. | 1938 | Gen. Laws §11-27-19 governs the UPL Committee's powers and duties, and the ODC handles UPL complaints. Sup. Ct. Art. V, Rule 5.5 (amended 2023) follows the ABA model with standard safe harbors. Beyond Rule 5.5 and the criminal statute (§11-27-14), court-rule elaboration is minimal. | https://www.courts.ri.gov/programs-services/Pages/Unauthorized-Practice-of-Law-default.aspx | Rhode Island Supreme Court | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | UPL Committee; AG for criminal enforcement | Shared. | Court delegates to UPL Committee, AG for ciminal prosecution | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
48 | South Carolina | Both (Criminal & Civil) | S.C. Code §40‑5‑310 – felony and civil powers. | 2009 | Rule 407 SCACR (amended 2023) contains the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 5.5, which follows the ABA model. The UPL Committee handles referrals, and Rule 405 SCACR provides an Authorized House Counsel registration pathway. Under §40-5-310, UPL is a felony. | https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/networking/committees/unauthorized-practice-of-law/ | Supreme Court of South Carolina | Judicial Branch | UPL Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to UPL Committee | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
49 | South Dakota | Both (Criminal & Civil) | SD ST §16-18-2; §16‑18‑1; §16‑16‑1 – Misdemeanor; Bar may seek injunction. | 1959 / 2001 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (amended 2018) follows the ABA model. §16-18-2 provides the statutory UPL framework, with disciplinary matters handled by the State Bar's Disciplinary Board under court supervision. No standalone UPL court rule exists beyond Rule 5.5 and the statute. | https://www.statebarofsouthdakota.com/ | Supreme Court of South Dakota | Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | State Bar (Disciplinary Board); AG can enforce injunctions | Delegated. | Court delegates to State Bar's Disciplinary Board; AG to enforce injunctions | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Tennessee | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Tenn. Code §23‑3‑103 – Misdemeanor; injunctive authority. | 2009 | S.Ct. R. 9 (amended 2024) governs UPL complaints handled by the Board of Professional Responsibility. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Tennessee notably exempts those statutorily authorized to appear in a representative capacity before state or local administrative boards and agencies. | https://www.tbpr.org/ | Tennessee Supreme Court | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Board of Professional Responsibility; AG can enforce injunctions | Delegated. | Court delegates to professional responsibility board; AG to enforce injunctions | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Texas | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Gov’t Code §§81.102–.105; §83.006 (civil); Penal Code §§38.122–.123 (criminal). | 1999 | The UPLC operates under Sup. Ct. rules and Gov't Code §§81.101–81.106; it may only handle complaints, not issue advisory opinions. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 5.05 (Texas's version of Rule 5.5) follows the ABA model with Texas-specific commentary. Under Penal Code §38.123, UPL is a misdemeanor, rising to a third-degree felony for repeat offenders. | http://www.txuplc.org/ | Texas Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to UPL Committee. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
52 | U.S. Virgin Islands | Civil only | VI ST T. 4 § 443 – Injunctive relief | 2016 | Sup. Ct. Rule 212.1 establishes the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, and Rule 203(d) details its powers and duties. Rule 5.5 (Rule 211.5.5) departs significantly from the ABA model — it is narrower, lacking the multijurisdictional safe harbors other jurisdictions have adopted, and ties enforcement to the more restrictive statutory definition in T. 4 §443. | https://visupremecourt.hosted.civiclive.com/offices_of_the_court/office_of_disciplinary_counsel/unauthorized_practice_of_law | Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands | Judicial Branch, Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Virgin Islands Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law | Shared. | Court delegates to Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. AG and Bar Association can still intitiate actions to enjoin UPL. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Utah | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Utah Code §78A‑9‑103 – Injunction / misdemeanor | 2026 | R. of Prof. Prac. 14-802 governs UPL enforcement by the Office of Professional Conduct. Utah is notable for its regulatory sandbox (eff. 2020, Standing Order No. 15), which lets non-traditional legal service providers operate under waived ethics rules, supervised by the Office of Legal Services Innovation — the broadest court-rule departure from the traditional UPL model in the U.S. Under Utah Code §78A-9-103, UPL is a misdemeanor, rising to a third-degree felony under certain conditions. | https://opcutah.org/ | Utah Supreme Court | Judicial Branch, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Court has injunctive authority, AG / DA may investigate and prosecute UPL | Shared. | Innovative dual system: Traditional enforcement plus regulatory sandbox for legal innovation | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Vermont | Both (Criminal & Civil) | 3 V.S.A. §127 – Civil penalties (injunction + fine up to $5,000) and criminal penalties (fine up to $5,000 and/or up to 1 year imprisonment); Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.5. | 2025 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (amended 2022) follows the ABA model with standard temporary-practice safe harbors. The Office of Professional Regulation operates under T. 3 §123. | https://sos.vermont.gov/opr | Vermont Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Office of Professional Regulation | Delegated. | Court delegates to Office of Professional Regulation | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Virginia | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Va. Code §54.1‑3904; §55.1-1014 – Misdemeanor; Bar may enjoin. | 1994 / 2021 | R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. Under R. S. Ct. Pt. 6, §4, Par. 10, the VSB's UPL process is distinctive: a staff ethics attorney (not a committee) reviews complaints and recommends approval to the Clerk of the disciplinary system, a non-lawyer. Code §54.1-3904 (amended 1994) provides criminal penalties, and R. S. Ct. Rule 1A:5 establishes an Authorized House Counsel registration pathway. | https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/unauthorized-practice.aspx | Supreme Court of Virginia | Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Virginia State Bar (UPL Committee) | Shared. | Shared enforcement: Bar UPL Committee for civil, AG for criminal prosecution. Changes to the substantive UPL rules would be proposed by the Legal Ethics Committee. reviewed by Bar Council, and if approved, submitted to the Court for approval; initial review and investigation of complaints is handled by a staff ethics attorney who makes a recommendation for final approval by the Clerk of the disciplinary system (a non-lawyer). | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Washington | Both (Criminal & Civil) | WA ST 2.48.180 – Misdemeanor; P.L.B. civil process. | 2004 | GR 25 (amended 2018) establishes the Practice of Law Board and defines the scope of practice. GR 24 (amended 2025) lists exemptions, including Limited License Legal Technicians and Limited Practice Officers. Washington's court-rule framework is among the most innovative in scope-of-practice regulation nationally. | https://www.wsba.org/Legal-Community/Committees-Boards-and-Other-Groups/practice-of-law-board | Supreme Court of Washington | Bar Association, Executive Branch (Attorney General) | Washington State Bar Association / Practice of Law Board; AG can enforce injunctions. | Delegated. | Court delegates to State Bar Association with specialized Practice of Law Board; AG to enforce injunctions | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
57 | West Virginia | Both (Criminal & Civil) | W. Va. Code §30‑2‑4; §39‑4‑34 – Misdemeanor plus injunctive remedy. | 2016 / 2014 | Rule 5 et seq. of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure governs UPL complaints and the ODC's investigative authority. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model. | https://wvodc.org/ | Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia | Judicial Branch | Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Delegated. | Court delegates to disciplinary counsel office | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Wisconsin | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Wis. Stat. §757.30 – Misdemeanor; OLR civil oversight. | 2001 | SCR 20:5.5 (amended 2017) follows the ABA model for licensed attorneys. SCR Ch. 23 addresses UPL specifically, and Wis. Stat. §757.30 provides the criminal penalty. Wisconsin is a mandatory bar state, but the Office of Lawyer Regulation is a separate Supreme Court administrative agency — a notable structural feature distinct from the State Bar. | https://www.wicourts.gov/services/public/lawyerreg/about.htm | Wisconsin Supreme Court | Judicial Branch | Office of Lawyer Regulation | Delegated. | Court delegates to specialized lawyer regulation office. Wisconsin is a mandatory bar. The primary regulatory agency, the Office of Lawyer Regulation, is a Supreme Court administrative agency that is not affiliated with the State Bar of Wisconsin (which is a separate entity). The practice of law in Wisconsin is generally governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, WI S. Ct. R., Ch 20. The regulatory enforcement procedure is set forth in WI S. Ct. R., Ch. 22. UPL is addressed in WI S. Ct. R., Ch. 23 & Wis. Stat. 757.30. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Wyoming | Both (Criminal & Civil) | Wyo. Stat. §33‑5‑117; WY R UNAUTH PRAC Rule 1 – Misdemeanor; Injunctive remedy | 1957 / 2014 | R. Unauth. Prac. Rule 3 establishes the UPL Committee's authority and complaint procedures. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 follows the ABA model with standard safe harbors and no significant departures. Wyo. Stat. §33-5-117 provides the criminal penalty. | https://www.wyomingbar.org/about-us/boards-committees/ | Wyoming Supreme Court | Bar Association | UPL Committee | Delegated. | Court delegates to Bar Association UPL Committee. | July 1, 2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||