2.2.1Temporary Practice: The RAMS Doors (Rule 5.5(c))

Clients and their problems cross state lines; bar admission does not. A rule treating every out-of-state phone call as unlicensed practice would either strand clients mid-matter or be ignored until it meant nothing. Narrow doorways let the work follow the client while admission stays the default the public relies on.

A lawyer admitted in at least one U.S. jurisdiction and not disbarred or suspended in any jurisdiction may work temporarily in another state through a RAMS (Reasonably related, for services not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) · Association with local counsel · Mediation, arbitration, or other alternative resolution proceeding, unless the forum requires pro hac vice admission · Special permission (pro hac vice)) door:

1. services reasonably related to home-state practice that are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3),
2. association with an actively participating local lawyer,
3. mediation, arbitration, or other alternative resolution proceeding tied to that practice and not requiring pro hac vice admission in the forum, or
4. special permission (pro hac vice) for services in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding, where the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized to appear or reasonably expects to be.

No office, no systematic or continuous presence, no holding out as admitted here.

Context. Rule 5.5(c) creates four narrow temporary exceptions so that licensed lawyers can work across state lines without triggering UPL, while keeping bar admission as the baseline consumer protection. A lawyer admitted in at least one U.S. jurisdiction may enter another state temporarily through one of four RAMS doors — R for reasonably related, for services not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3), A for association, M for mediation, arbitration, or other alternative resolution proceeding not requiring pro hac vice admission in the forum, S for special permission — provided the lawyer is not disbarred or suspended anywhere. A systematic or continuous local presence, or holding out to the public that the lawyer is admitted here, is still UPL.

Resolution. The depositions are in or reasonably related to a proceeding pending before a Texas tribunal in which Dan is authorized to appear, so the S door — Rule 5.5(c)(2) — covers them; Comment [10] names taking depositions in the visited state as its example. R does not reach them, because paragraph (c)(4) applies only to services not within (c)(2) or (c)(3). Dan needs no Oklahoma pro hac vice admission and no Oklahoma co-counsel. Opening an office in Tulsa or soliciting Oklahoma clients would change the analysis. Trace the Tulsa depositions back to the Texas proceeding — that link is what the S door asks about.

Memory hook: The S door covers a pending or potential proceeding — preparation in anticipation of pro hac vice counts, so long as the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, reasonably expects to be admitted. What it does not cover is appearing before the tribunal without the admission.