## Facts

- Robert P. McCarney, a North Dakota businessman, hired Esko E. Ranta, an attorney licensed in Minnesota, for legal services connected to the sale of McCarney’s North Dakota business, McCarney’s Ford, Inc.
- Ranta was never admitted or licensed to practice law in North Dakota, but he traveled to North Dakota and performed work there for McCarney, much of it related to tax and transaction matters.
- The sale culminated in an all-day closing in Bismarck, North Dakota, on November 7, 1977, where final sale documents were negotiated and signed.
- McCarney paid Ranta $5,000 around June 1, 1978. Later in June 1978, Ranta sent McCarney a bill for $22,500 showing the $5,000 credit and claiming a remaining balance of $17,500; the bill did not include itemized hours or costs.
- Ranta’s office records reflected roughly 61 hours of work for McCarney; Ranta testified that additional time was not recorded and was kept “in his mind.”
- Ranta testified that McCarney had referred many other clients to him in the area and that Ranta had opened what he called a “branch office” in Bismarck to serve those clients.
- Ranta sued McCarney in North Dakota to recover the unpaid portion of the fee.
- At the end of trial, McCarney sought leave to amend his pleadings to assert that Ranta’s claim was barred because Ranta was not licensed in North Dakota and his in-state work amounted to unauthorized practice.
- The trial court allowed the amendment but still entered judgment for Ranta, concluding North Dakota law did not bar the fee claim and that equitable estoppel prevented McCarney from relying on the licensing statute after accepting the services.
- McCarney appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer not licensed to practice law in North Dakota may recover attorney’s fees for legal services performed in North Dakota when those services constitute the practice of law under N.D.C.C. § 27-11-01.  
2. If recovery is barred for services constituting unauthorized in-state practice, whether any portion of the claimed fee may be recovered for separable services performed outside North Dakota in a place where the lawyer was authorized to practice.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment awarding fees to Ranta.
- The court held that N.D.C.C. § 27-11-01 reflects a strong public policy against unauthorized practice of law in North Dakota and bars recovery of fees for in-state legal services performed by a lawyer not admitted in North Dakota.
- The court rejected the trial court’s use of equitable estoppel to allow recovery, reasoning that equitable doctrines cannot be used to avoid the effect of a statute designed to protect the public.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether any part of Ranta’s services was performed outside North Dakota and was both lawful and separable, such that limited recovery might be possible if adequately proven.

## Legal Principles

- N.D.C.C. § 27-11-01 prohibits the practice of law in North Dakota by persons not duly admitted and licensed; violation is criminalized and reflects a public-protection policy.
- “Practice of law” is broadly defined and includes more than courtroom appearances, such as giving legal advice, negotiating on a client’s behalf, and preparing legal instruments and transaction documents.
- A claim for fees (whether under contract or quantum meruit) is not enforceable to the extent it seeks compensation for legal services performed in violation of a licensing statute aimed at public protection.
- Equitable estoppel cannot be applied to require payment for services that the law forbids, even if the client received and benefited from the work.
- When services span jurisdictions, recovery may be available only for a separable portion performed outside the regulating state and not amounting to unauthorized in-state practice, but the lawyer bears the burden to identify and prove that portion.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that a Minnesota lawyer who performed legal services in North Dakota without being licensed there could not recover fees for work constituting the practice of law in North Dakota; it reversed the fee judgment and remanded to determine whether any distinct, lawful out-of-state services were proven and compensable.


Ranta v. McCarney, 391 N.W.2d 161 (1986)