Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375, (2008) (subject to revision before publication)

Brief Summary
New York had personal jurisdiction over a California client who contacted a New York attorney, established an attorney-client relationship, and regularly communicated with the attorney regarding her legal matter. Thus, the New York attorney could sue the California client for fees in New York.

Complete Summary
California resident Suzanne Doucet contacted New York attorney Gabriel Fischbarg by calling him at his New York office. As a result of the call, Fischbarg ended up representing Doucet in an Oregon lawsuit. Fischbarg worked remotely from New York as a pro hac vice admittee. Although Doucet never met Fischbarg, she had telephone conversations with him approximately twice per week for nine months regarding the Oregon lawsuit. In addition, she sent him mail, e-mail and faxes during the same period—all to New York.

Midway through the Oregon lawsuit Fischbarg and Doucet terminated their relationship because of a dispute about the terms of the retainer agreement. Fischbarg moved the Oregon District Court for attorney fees. That court denied the motion based on lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the fee dispute. Fischbarg then sued Doucet in New York seeking damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Doucet argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over her.

The high court of New York found personal jurisdiction over Doucet under the state long arm statute. It was irrelevant that Doucet had never entered the state because her contact with New York was purposeful and there was a substantial relationship between Fischbarg’s claim and her contact. As applied to this case, the long arm statute also required a “transaction of business.”  Id. at 380-81. A single purposeful contact generally does not satisfy this requirement, but the quality and extent of Doucet’s contacts helped the court find a transaction of business. The court also noted that by entering into an attorney-client relationship, Doucet benefited from the protections that New York law affords clients.

The court differentiated this case from similar cases involving the unilateral actions of third parties. For example, when a Delaware client hired a Massachusetts attorney to negotiate with a New York company and the attorney established significant contacts with New York, New York did not have jurisdiction over the client because the client had never directly made contact with New York.

Significance of Opinion
Perhaps the most surprising thing about this case is that the court held that New York had jurisdiction over a Californian who hired a lawyer to appear pro hac vice in Oregon litigation because the lawyer was in New York. Under this holding, it would seem that in most if not all situations in which the legal fees are worth pursuing through litigation, jurisdiction in the lawyer’s home state will be ancillary.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.