Subject to Minnesota Rules and Jurisdiction

The out-of-state lawyer is subject to all rules that apply to lawyers admitted in Minnesota, including rules related to e-filing and the registration requirements for e-filing in Rule 14.02(a) of the General Rules of Practice for the District Court. To the extent that electronic service on the out- of-state lawyer under Rule 14 is unavailable, service of documents on the lawyer admitted to the bar of this state and who appears as counsel of record with the out-of-state lawyer shall constitute notice to and service on the party. Any lawyer appearing pursuant to this rule is subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations governing Minnesota lawyers, including the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and by applying to appear or appearing in any action is subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts. (Amended effective July 1, 2015; amended effective June 1, 2021.) Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption This rule is derived from 3rd Dist. R. 1. This rule is intended to supplement Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 481.02, and would supersede the statute to the extent the rule may be inconsistent with it. This rule recognizes and preserves the power and responsibility of the court to determine the proper role to be played by lawyers not admitted to practice in Minnesota. Advisory Committee Comment - 2015 Amendments The amendments to Rule 5 are not substantive in nature or intended effect. They make explicit what the courts have recognized as within their inherent power to regulate the practice of law Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 23 GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE MINNESOTA COURT RULES before the courts. The court's jurisdiction over the person of lawyers applying to appear or appearing in the Minnesota courts is not open to serious question, at least as to disciplinary matters relating to that application or appearance. This rule makes clear the court's jurisdiction over a pro hac vice applicant, and similarly makes it clear that e-filing of documents with the Minnesota courts would have this consequence. The application for a subpoena in an action pending outside Minnesota does not create an appearance under R. Civ. P. 45 as proposed by the civil rules advisory committee, but nonetheless subjects the applicant to the court's jurisdiction and disciplinary authority. The subpoena and procedures to enforce it are subject to Minnesota procedural rules and rules governing the conduct of lawyers. Advisory Committee Comment - 2020 Amendment