Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law

Last Updated : 02/09/2026

The Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law investigates complaints against persons who are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. See DC App. R. 49. It also monitors motions made by attorneys from other jurisdictions for permission to appear pro hac vice in District of Columbia Courts. The Committee has twelve members, eleven of whom are members of the District of Columbia Bar. One member of the committee is a non-attorney, as required by DC App. R. 49.

Form for Unauthorized Practice Matters

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Articles

How Lawyers Can Avoid the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Simple Steps for Compliance With Rule 49

Important Update: Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice of Law in DC (link to the DC Bar)

DC App. Rule 49 and Rule 49 Opinions

DC App. Rule 49 and Commentary

Opinion 1-98: Compliance With Exception 49(c)(8)

Opinion 2-98: Procedure for Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice Under Exception 49(c)(7)

Opinion 3-98: Procedure for Practice Pro Bono Publico Under Exception 49(c)(9)

Opinion 4-98: Practice of Law by Organizations; Section 49(b)(2)(F)

Opinion 5-98: Notices to be Given by Lawyers Having Limited Authority to Practice Law in the District of Columbia: In Directory Listings, Marketing Material, Letterhead, Business Cards, Telephone Listings and the Like

Opinion 6-99: Permissible Conduct of Commercial Firms that Place Attorneys on a Temporary Basis With Legal Service Organizations

Opinion 7-99: Permissible Practice of Law During the 360 Day Period of Rule 49 (c)(8)

Opinion 8-00: Permissible Practice of Foreign Lawyers in the District of Columbia

Opinion 9-01: Pro Hac Vice Statements by Lawyers Practicing in the District of Columbia Pursuant to an Exception to Rule 49

Opinion 10-01: Use of the Limited Duration Practice Exception by a Lawyer Who Has Previously Practiced in the District Under Another Exception to Rule 49

Opinion 11-02: Amendments to Disclosure Requirements of Rule 49(c)

Opinion 12-02: Supervision of Attorneys Under Rule 49(c)

Opinion 13-04: Compliance With Exception 49(c)(4) for DC Government Employees

Opinion 14-04: Practice by Foreign Lawyers on an Incidental Basis

Opinion 15-05: Holding Out by Foreign Lawyers with Principal Offices in the District of Columbia

Opinion 16-05: Compliance with Rule 49 by “Contract” Lawyers in the District of Columbia

Opinion 17-06: The Scope of the Federal Court Practice Exception in Rule 49(c)(3)

Opinion 18-06: Provision of Pro Bono Services Under the Limited Duration Practice Exception in Rule 49(c)(8)

Opinion 19-07: Applicability of Rule 49 to US Legislative Lobbying

Opinion 20-08: Limitations on Notice of Bar Status Under Rule 49(c)(8)

Opinion 21-12: Applicability of Rule 49 to Discovery Services Companies

Opinion 22-17: Use of the Terms "Associate" or "Counsel" as "Holding Out" to Practice Law

Opinion 23-18: Practice of Law in Disciplinary Matters by Attorneys Admitted Outside the District of Columbia

Opinion 24-20: Teleworking from Home and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Advisory Letter Concerning Executive Branch Lobbying

Committee Members

Chair
Geoffrey M. Klineberg

Vice Chair
Maura McGonigle

Members
John Longstreth
David C. Simmons
Jeffrey A. Bartos
Sharon Hutchins
German Gomez
Adam Zajac
Y. Kris Lee
Goldie Gider
David Horniak
David Riskin
Robin Nunn

Liaison Judge
Honorable Roy McLeese

The fee of $100 may be made by money order, certified check or cashier’s check. Please make the payment to “Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals”

You may mail or deliver the application and payment to:
The Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law
430 E St., NW R. 123
Washington, D.C. 20001

If you have questions or concerns regarding the unauthorized practice of law in the District of Columbia, please email them to CUPL [at] dcappeals.gov