## Facts

- A child was abducted from Massachusetts to Lebanon by her father in violation of a Massachusetts custody decree awarding custody to the child’s mother, Mary Aoude.
- Loretta Seaman, a New York resident and the child’s grandmother, and Mary sought advice from Antoine El Gemayel, an attorney admitted in Lebanon but not in any U.S. jurisdiction, about whether Lebanese courts would honor the Massachusetts decree.
- El Gemayel provided a written opinion that Lebanese courts would honor the decree, billed $2,000, and was paid.
- The parties continued working together; the trial court found El Gemayel agreed to assist in securing the child’s return, and Seaman agreed to pay fees and expenses.
- The bulk of El Gemayel’s services occurred in Lebanon: confirming the child’s location, instituting multiple court actions there, and assisting Mary in returning the child to the United States.
- El Gemayel also performed limited U.S.-based tasks ancillary to the Lebanon work, including obtaining and authenticating documents for use in Lebanon and helping with forms and travel-related arrangements.
- His New York contacts were primarily frequent phone calls to Seaman and Mary in Phoenix, New York, regarding progress, plus a later visit to New York after the work was essentially completed to discuss billing.
- After Seaman did not pay the full bill, El Gemayel sued in New York for breach of contract and, alternatively, quantum meruit.

## Issues

1. Whether El Gemayel’s services for New York residents constituted the unauthorized practice of law “in this state” under Judiciary Law § 478, rendering the fee agreement illegal and unenforceable.
2. Whether, if the contract were unenforceable for illegality, recovery could be barred in contract and in quantum meruit.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding judgment for El Gemayel (subject to a modification reflecting partial payment).
- The court held El Gemayel did not engage in unauthorized practice of law in New York within Judiciary Law § 478.
- Because the conduct was not unlawful practice in New York, the fee contract was not void, and El Gemayel could recover unpaid fees and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Judiciary Law § 478 bars practicing or holding oneself out as an attorney in New York without being admitted and licensed in New York.
- Whether conduct amounts to practicing law “in New York” depends on the nature and locus of the services, not merely the client’s New York residence or communications into New York.
- Legal work predominantly performed in a foreign jurisdiction by an attorney licensed there, concerning foreign proceedings and foreign law, does not become New York law practice solely because the client is in New York and receives communications there.
- Preparatory and incidental U.S.-based activities supporting foreign litigation, and status updates communicated to New York clients, do not alone constitute practicing law in New York.
- Prior decisions invalidating fee contracts for unauthorized New York practice are distinguishable where the services do not involve New York law, New York tribunals, or acting as a New York attorney.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a Lebanon-licensed attorney’s representation centered on Lebanese law and Lebanese courts, with only incidental U.S. tasks and communications to New York clients, did not violate Judiciary Law § 478; therefore, the fee agreement was enforceable and the attorney could recover unpaid compensation.


El Gemayel v. Seaman, 72 N.Y.2d 701 (N.Y. 1988)