## Facts

- A California resident and a California corporation sought legal representation in an Oregon federal dispute.
- The clients initiated contact by calling a New York attorney at his New York office to discuss representation.
- The client sent a letter to the attorney’s New York office confirming key terms, enclosing an expense deposit, and transmitting case-related documents for review.
- The attorney alleged the parties formed a retainer agreement by telephone while he was in New York.
- The attorney performed the legal work from New York, including drafting and strategy and participating in Oregon proceedings by telephone; he did not travel to Oregon or California.
- Throughout the representation, the clients regularly communicated with the attorney in New York by phone, mail, fax, and email over several months.
- The relationship ended after a fee dispute; the clients later settled the Oregon litigation.
- The attorney sued in New York for unpaid legal fees under contract and unjust enrichment; the clients moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether New York courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) over out-of-state clients who retained a New York attorney and maintained an ongoing attorney–client relationship through extensive communications directed to New York, despite no physical entry into New York and underlying litigation in another state.
2. Whether the fee dispute claims “arose from” the clients’ New York-directed activities so as to satisfy the required nexus under CPLR 302(a)(1) and due process.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held the clients “transacted business” in New York under CPLR 302(a)(1) by purposefully creating and maintaining a continuing attorney–client relationship with a New York attorney through sustained communications and document transmissions to New York.
- The court held the attorney’s fee claims arose from that New York transaction because they were based on services rendered from New York pursuant to the relationship the clients initiated and maintained.
- The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction was consistent with due process because the clients’ New York-directed conduct made it foreseeable that a fee dispute could be litigated in New York.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 302(a)(1) permits jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who transacts business in New York when the cause of action arises from that transaction.
- “Transacting business” may be shown by purposeful, New York-directed conduct that creates a continuing relationship with a New York resident; physical presence in New York is not required.
- A plaintiff must show an “articulable nexus” or “substantial relationship” between the New York transaction and the claim; a fee claim based on services performed from New York can satisfy this requirement when tied to the relationship formed and carried out through New York communications.
- For due process, purposeful availment and foreseeability are supported where out-of-state clients deliberately engage a New York professional and maintain substantial ongoing contacts with New York related to the dispute.

## Conclusion

New York courts could exercise long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state clients who initiated and maintained a sustained attorney–client relationship with a New York attorney through extensive communications and document transmissions into New York, because the attorney’s fee claims were directly connected to that New York-based relationship and jurisdiction was constitutionally fair.


Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375 (N.Y. 2007)