## Facts

- Ira Levine, a New York real-estate businessman, sought West German financing for a New Jersey development project.
- A West Berlin law firm (including Peter R. Ackermann) performed legal work in Germany connected to the financing effort and later claimed substantial fees under a German fee statute.
- Levine disputed owing the fees and denied authorizing certain work or understanding the fee implications.
- The attorneys sued Levine for fees in the Regional Court of Berlin (West Germany).
- The German court served Levine in the United States using registered mail under the Hague Service Convention process; the documents were sent to Levine’s residence and signed for by a building employee.
- Levine did not appear in the German action, and the Berlin court entered a default judgment for DM 190,708.49 plus interest.
- The attorneys filed an action in the Southern District of New York to enforce the German default judgment; the district court refused enforcement based on (1) defective service under the Hague Service Convention and due process and (2) New York public policy governing attorney fee arrangements.

## Issues

1. Whether service of a German summons and complaint on a U.S. resident by registered mail complied with the Hague Service Convention and constitutional due process, permitting enforcement of the resulting default judgment.
2. Whether New York public policy on attorney-client fee arrangements barred enforcement of a foreign default judgment awarding legal fees under a foreign statutory fee regime.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that service of process by registered mail, as used, satisfied the Hague Service Convention and due process; the district court’s contrary ruling was reversed.
- The court held that New York public policy did not justify categorical nonenforcement of the German fee judgment.
- Enforcement was allowed only to the extent the attorneys, in the U.S. enforcement proceeding, presented at least evidence of client authorization and appropriate work product supporting the fees; the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with that limitation.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Service Convention, service by postal channels is permitted where the receiving state has not objected and the method used is consistent with the Convention’s terms.
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action and provide an opportunity to be heard; actual personal receipt is not invariably required if the method is otherwise reliable.
- New York generally recognizes final foreign-country money judgments absent jurisdictional defects or a strong public-policy basis for refusal.
- New York’s public policy protecting clients in attorney-fee matters can justify requiring, at a minimum, proof of client authorization and competent evidence that legal services were actually performed, but it does not require wholesale re-litigation of a foreign fee award or automatic refusal to enforce it.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that registered-mail service in the German action complied with the Hague Service Convention and due process, and it permitted enforcement of the German default judgment for legal fees only to the extent the attorneys could show client authorization and supporting work product, remanding for a limited enforcement determination.


Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986)