On May 3, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order in response to an MSBA petition proposing amendments to rules 1.6 and 5.5 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court rejected a proposed amendment to Rule 1.6 that would have permitted lawyers to disclose limited confidential client information to respond to a client’s public criticism of the lawyer if the client had first disclosed confidential information. The Court stated the proposed change could have unforeseen effects on the lawyer-client relationship.
The Court accepted a proposed amendment to Rule 5.5(d) to permit a non-Minnesota lawyer to continuously practice in Minnesota the law of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted, provided that lawyer notifies clients that the lawyer is not admitted to practice Minnesota law. The Court reasoned that this is a logical extension of the current Rule 5.5 exemption permitting a non-Minnesota lawyer to practice in other limited areas of non-Minnesota law.
The Court amended Rule 5.5(c)(3) to permit a non-Minnesota lawyer to provide legal services in Minnesota that are reasonably related to the lawyer’s recognized expertise in an area of law developed through regular practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is lawfully admitted.
Finally, the Court agreed with a proposed amendment to Rule 5.5(c)(3) permitting a non-Minnesota lawyer to provide representation in Minnesota to a family member. The Court recognized that this change responds to the Court’s invitation to the MSBA in In Re Panel File No. 49402, 884 N.W.2d 661 (Minn. 2016) to suggest amendments to the rule if the bar felt that the court’s ruling in that case unnecessarily affected the ability of lawyers to meet client needs. But the Court rejected language that would have extended the exemption to close personal friends and existing clients.