The case does not prohibit Congress or a federal agency from adopting limitations on who can practice before the agency. It does hold, however, that in the absence of limitations as a matter of statute or agency rule, admission to the local bar may not be required. The case thus suggests a significant potential exception to state bar admissions requirements. On the other hand, query how far one can take the concept of what is practice “before an agency.” Is a lawyer who advises a client about matters relating to a government agency’s jurisdiction but who does so in the context of giving advice to a client in aid of a private transaction practicing before an agency in this sense? On its face, the case does not appear to answer this question.