Lawyers who practice law "systematically and continuously" or even temporarily in states where they are not licensed confront unauthorized practice of law and multijurisdictional statutes and rules. Does attorney-client privilege protection rise or fall on the same analysis? Normally not.

But some courts find that it does. In Flynn v. Love, Case No. 3:19-CV-00239-MMD-CLB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201066 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2021), plaintiffs sued Beach Boys member Mike Love and his fifth wife over a copyright issue involving thirty-five Beach Boys songs. The court noted that plaintiffs asserted privilege protection for some communications with their lawyer Stillman. Among other things, the court held that Stillman (himself a plaintiff) had not established the existence of an attorney-client relationship with other plaintiffs, emphasizing that "[m]ore importantly . . . Stillman cannot represent anyone in Nevada, because he is not licensed in Nevada." Id. at *13.

Although Stillman's multijurisdictional practice issue was not dispositive, in most courts it would not even be a factor. The majority rule does not strip away a client's privilege even if his lawyer was improperly practicing in a state where she was not authorized to do so.