Unauthorized practice of law in a jurisdiction where you’re not licensed is the default rule. You may not practice there unless you’re properly admitted in that jurisdiction or granted pro hac vice status for a specific matter. The association with a local licensed attorney does not by itself authorize you to practice; supervision or co-counsel arrangement doesn’t waive the licensure requirement. Pro hac vice is the usual mechanism for temporary participation in a case, but it requires formal approval and local supervision. So, without either admission or pro hac vice, practicing in that jurisdiction isn’t permissible.

Contingent fee arrangements can be used in civil matters, but they must be reduced to a writing that the client signs and must meet additional protective requirements. The writing shows exactly how the fee will be calculated, typically as a percentage of the recovery, and explains how expenses are handled and when the fee is payable. This transparency protects the client from unexpected charges and helps prevent disputes about value. In contrast, such fees are not permitted in criminal cases, reflecting policy concerns about fairness and avoiding SAMPLEincentives that could conflict with the client’s interests. So, the best description is that contingent fees are allowed in civil matters only if they’re in writing and comply with other requirements, and they’re not allowed in criminal matters.

When you learn a witness has given false testimony, the main obligation is to preserve the integrity of the proceedings by not presenting false evidence and by taking steps to correct the record. The permissible remedy is to refrain from presenting the false testimony and to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure to the court and correction when appropriate. This might involve alerting the court to the falsity, seeking to introduce corrected or clarifying evidence, or otherwise ensuring the record reflects the truth. The goal is to rectify the situation before or during proceedings, rather than letting misleading testimony stand. Ignoring the issue or presenting the false testimony would compromise candor to the tribunal, and seeking dismissal of the entire case is not the appropriate remedy for correcting false testimony.

There isn’t a single universal rule here—jurisdictions vary on how compensation tied to recruitment or referrals after representation ends. The common thread is that transparency matters and payments should not be structured primarily to obtain referrals. In many places you’ll see requirements that the client be informed about any referral arrangements and that the compensation reflect fair market value for services actually performed, not simply a payout for generating clients. Some jurisdictions permit referral arrangements under those disclosures and safeguards, while others impose stricter limits or even prohibitions. Bar associations interpret and explain these rules, but they don’t pre-approve every arrangement.