On April 2, 1987, California's new rules on licensing of foreign legal consultants came into effect, joining the foreign legal consultant rules in New York, the District of Columbia, Michigan, and Hawaii [Rule 988, Cal. Rules of Court; N.Y. Ct. App. R. for Licensing of Legal Consultants, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 521; Rule 46 (c) (4), D.C. Ct. App.; Rule 5 (E), Mich. Bd. of L. Exam'rs; Rule 14, Sup. Ct. of Hawaii]. The California, New York and District of Columbia rules are reprinted here. In addition, a foreign legal consultants proposal is now under active consideration in Texas.

The table following this note summarizes the provisions of the five foreign legal consultant rules with regard to eligibility for admission, the scope of practice permitted the foreign legal consultant, and professional discipline. In the United States, it is unconstitutional for a state to deny admission to the bar by reason of citizenship (In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973). State residency requirements are also unconstitutional as applied to citizens of other states (Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985). State bar examination pass rates range from 40% to 99%; a substantial number of foreign lawyers have been admitted to the bar by passing the bar examination. As of June 1, 1987, over 70 foreign legal consultants had been licensed in New York, and none in other jurisdictions (one application was pending).

The Court of Cassation's decision in Sonatrach v. Migeon follows its 1984 decision in Eurodif Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran [23 I.L.M. 1062 (1984)] in helping Formulate a more cogent French position on sovereign immunity. In the Eurodif case, the Court of Cassation established that a state is not entitled to sovereign immunity from execution when the activity from which the claim arises is of an economic or commercial nature and the assets subject to execution relate to that activity. The Sonatrach decision goes beyond Eurodif in distinguishing between immunity of execution granted to a sovereign state and that granted to a state enterprise.

On January 6, 1987, the French Court of Cassation denied the petition for annulment of the decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeals on July 12, 1984 [23 I.L.M. 1048 (1984)] which set aside the award rendered by an ICC Arbitral Tribunal on March 11, 1983 in the SPP v. The Arab Republic of Egypt case [22 I.L.M. 752 (1983)].

Ruling on the question of their own competence, the arbitrators accepted jurisdiction over the Arab Republic of Egypt on the ground that by affixing the words “approved, agreed and ratified” by the Minister of Tourism and the signature of the Minister of Tourism to a contract entered into “between” SPP and the Egyptian General Organization for Tourism and Hotels (EGOTH), the State had agreed to be bound by the ICC arbitration clause contained in that contract.