Businesses located outside New York that retain attorneys in the state to perform legal services should review a recent decision from the New York Court of Appeals establishing that having an attorney-client relationship with a New York attorney can subject the business to personal jurisdiction in a New York court. This result can occur even if the attorney does not represent the company in a New York court and the company never actually sends any of its representatives to New York. The state’s highest court ruled in Fischbarg v. Doucet, 2007 WL 4438979 (N.Y. 2007), by establishing a continuing attorney-client relationship with a New York attorney, a business necessarily purposefully avails itself of the benefits and protections of New York’s laws and is subject to jurisdiction in that state.
Doucet, a California resident, placed a call to Fischbarg, a New York attorney, to discuss a potential copyright-infringement lawsuit Doucet was interested in filing against an Oregon corporation. Doucet then sent a letter to Fischbarg confirming that he had agreed to take on the case for a one-third contingency fee. Along with the letter, Doucet sent Fischbarg documents related to the potential litigation. Doucet then entered into a retainer agreement with Fischbarg via telephone. The Oregon company beat Doucet to the punch, filing suit against her and her business in the federal district court in Oregon. Fischbarg represented Doucet in that litigation, although he never actually appeared in court or otherwise travelled to Oregon. Instead, Fischbarg appeared at depositions and hearings via telephone from New York. Doucet repeatedly communicated with Fischbarg via e-mail, fax, and telephone, though she never went to New York.
The relationship between Doucet and Fischbarg soured, and Fischbarg resigned as Doucet’s attorney. Fischbarg then asked the Oregon federal court for an order awarding him fees for services rendered prior to his resignation, but the court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the fee dispute. After the Oregon litigation was settled, Fischbarg filed suit against Doucet in New York state court seeking damages for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Both the trial court and the appellate division ruled that the New York courts had jurisdiction over Doucet.
The Court of Appeals also held that the New York courts properly exercised jurisdiction over Doucet. The court rejected Doucet’s contention that because she never physically set foot in New York, she had not purposefully availed herself of the state’s protections and laws. Under New York law, jurisdiction is proper even though the defendant never enters the state as long as “the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted.” While limited contacts may not be sufficient to establish jurisdiction, this case involved Doucet’s “purposeful attempt to establish an attorney-client relationship via calls, faxes, and e-mails” that were protected into the state over many months. The court focused on the quality of Doucet’s contacts with New York, noting in particular that the regular communications between Doucet and Fischbarg involved the creation of a continuing relationship with a New York attorney. By doing so, Doucet projected herself “into our state’s legal services market . . . invoking the benefits and protections of our laws relating to the attorney-client relationship.” The court held that this ongoing, substantial professional relationship was sufficient to support long-arm jurisdiction. Businesses contemplating hiring attorneys in New York should therefore be aware that they may be haled into court in New York should an issue arise.