Counsel Concerns

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed that a California client was subject to personal jurisdiction in a suit by a New York lawyer for attorney fees. Fischbarg v. Doucet, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 09962. In 2001, Suzanne Bell-Doucet, president of the California company Only New Age Music Inc. (ONAM) called New York lawyer Gabriel Fischbarg to discuss possible representation in a legal dispute with Allegro Corp., an Oregon company. Bell-Doucet sent Fischbarg a $2,000 payment 'against expenses' and correspondence confirming a contingency fee. Bell-Doucet also sent contracts and additional materials regarding the Allegro dispute. Fischbarg then agreed by phone to a retainer agreement with the California client. Allegro soon sued ONAM in Oregon federal court.

Fischbarg served as pro hac vice counsel to ONAM in the Oregon litigation but worked on the case from his New York office for a total of about 238 hours, including arguing a summary-judgment motion by telephone. In January 2002, Fischbarg resigned as ONAM's counsel due to a difference over interpretation of the retainer agreement. The court in Oregon ruled that Fischbarg was entitled to 'a fair legal fee' but didn't set an amount. The Oregon action by Allegro against ONAM was settled in 2005. Three weeks later, Fischbarg sued Doucet in New York seeking legal fees, and alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Doucet moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the New York trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed.