Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to
the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although engaged in
practice elsewhere.
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Florida Rule of Professional Conduct for educational purposes. The rule text and Comment are mirrored from the Florida Bar's official publication and are public domain. The plain-English summary and any commentary are the opinion of Phillips, Hunt & Walker and are general information only — not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you believe a Florida lawyer has violated this rule, you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar at floridabar.org. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What this rule means in plain English
A Florida lawyer is subject to the Florida disciplinary authority regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs, as long as the lawyer is admitted in Florida. The rule also coordinates with other states: when a Florida lawyer practices in another jurisdiction, the conduct can be regulated by both Florida and the other state. There’s no ‘jurisdictional escape hatch’ from Florida ethics just because the bad conduct happened elsewhere.
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
In modern practice lawyers frequently act outside the
territorial limits of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to
practice, either in another state or outside the United States. In
doing so, they remain subject to the governing authority of the
jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice. If their activity
in another jurisdiction is substantial and continuous, it may
constitute the practice of law in that jurisdiction. See rule 4-5.5.
If the Rules of Professional Conduct in the 2 jurisdictions
differ, principles of conflict of laws may apply. Similar problems
can arise when a lawyer is licensed to practice in more than 1
jurisdiction.
Where the lawyer is licensed to practice law in 2 jurisdictions
that impose conflicting obligations, applicable rules of choice of law
may govern the situation. A related problem arises with respect to
practice before a federal tribunal where the general authority of the
states to regulate the practice of law must be reconciled with such
authority as federal tribunals may have to regulate practice before
them.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective Jan. 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252).