Motion Admission After Federal Service and Side Consultations
Daniel Okafor was admitted in Maryland in 2012. He practiced at a Maryland firm from 2013 to 2016. In 2016 he joined a federal agency in D.C. as a staff attorney; he has represented the agency in administrative proceedings and federal court since then. He let his Maryland Bar membership go inactive in 2018 but has never been suspended or disciplined. In 2022 he began giving paid immigration advice to friends on evenings and weekends, about 8-10 hours per month, and appeared once in D.C. immigration court. He never applied for D.C. admission. He now applies for admission on motion under D.C. Rule 46(b)(4), citing his seven years of federal practice. The D.C. Bar asks for a practice affidavit and good-standing certificate. Daniel asks whether the federal work and side consultations count and whether he should mention the immigration matter.
1. Does Daniel meet the "actively engaged in the practice of law" requirement for admission on motion based on his federal work?
Read the worked answer
Likely yes, but he must prove it carefully. D.C. Rule 46(b)(4) generally requires several years of active law practice within the relevant lookback period, and his seven years as a federal agency staff attorney are substantial. Federal government attorneys are commonly authorized to practice in connection with their federal employment, so the work is not automatically treated as unauthorized D.C. practice. But the burden is on Daniel to show that the work was actual law practice, not merely administrative or policy work, and that he was authorized to do it. He should submit a detailed practice affidavit describing matters, courts, agencies, supervisory responsibilities, and the percentage of time spent on legal work. He should also explain the inactive Maryland status and show that he is eligible to reactivate or otherwise in good standing. The side immigration consultations should not be presented as part of the qualifying practice; they raise separate authorization and candor issues.
2. Was Daniel's paid immigration advice lawful, and what should he disclose about it?
Read the worked answer
It depends on the forum and his authorization. Practice before federal immigration agencies may be permitted under federal rules for an attorney admitted in another state, but Daniel's Maryland membership was inactive, and inactive status may mean he was not authorized to practice in Maryland. His private advice also may have included D.C. law issues, which would not be covered by any federal-agency exception. The safest analysis is that the side consultations are a compliance risk, not a strength in his motion application. He must disclose them because the application asks about practice and because the Bar may learn of the immigration court appearance. He should describe the scope, the forum, his bar status at the time, and whether he held himself out as a D.C. lawyer. If any part was unauthorized, he should acknowledge it and explain corrective steps. Concealing the matter would be far worse than disclosing it.
3. What should Daniel do about his inactive Maryland status and the pending motion application?
Read the worked answer
He should not ignore the inactive status. He should obtain a current certificate of good standing or a statement of status from Maryland, determine whether inactive status makes him ineligible to practice there, and either reactivate or explain why reactivation is not required for the federal work. For the D.C. motion, he should supplement his practice affidavit with proof of his federal employment, a description of his actual legal duties, and evidence that his federal practice was authorized. He should also disclose the side consultations in an amendment, because the application and affidavit must be complete and accurate. If the Bar finds that he practiced in D.C. without authorization, that does not automatically defeat admission, but it will require candor, acceptance of responsibility, and an explanation of how he will avoid repeat conduct. He should expect the Bar to scrutinize the application rather than approve it routinely.