El Gemayel v. Seaman, 72 N.Y.2d 701 (1988)
r
r
An attorney licensed in a foreign jurisdiction does not engage in the unlawful practice of law in New York under Judiciary Law § 478 when their contact with New York consists solely of phone calls to advise a client about the progress of legal proceedings in that foreign jurisdiction.
r
r
Summary
r
El Gemayel, an attorney licensed in Lebanon but not in the U.S., sued Seaman to recover fees for legal services. Seaman argued that El Gemayel’s actions in New York constituted the unauthorized practice of law, rendering the contract unenforceable. The New York Court of Appeals held that phone calls made by the attorney to New York to update the client on the foreign legal proceedings did not, by themselves, amount to the practice of law in New York. This ruling reinforces that limited, ancillary contact by a foreign attorney does not violate the statute aimed at preventing the unauthorized practice of law.
r
r
Facts
r
Defendant’s granddaughter was abducted and taken to Lebanon. The Defendant and her daughter hired Plaintiff, an attorney licensed in Lebanon and residing in Washington, D.C., to assist in recovering the child. Plaintiff performed most of his services in Lebanon, including initiating court actions. Plaintiff’s contacts with New York included frequent phone calls to the Defendant in New York to report on the case’s progress and a single visit after the child was returned to deliver luggage and discuss the bill. Plaintiff mailed the bill to the Defendant in New York.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract and quantum meruit when she didn’t pay the bill. The Defendant claimed she never contracted with the Plaintiff and that the contract was unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds and the Plaintiff engaging in the unlawful practice of law. Special Term denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment but limited the Plaintiff’s possible recovery. The trial court granted judgment for the Plaintiff, holding that the Plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute the unlawful practice of law. The Appellate Division modified the judgment and affirmed it. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether phone calls to New York by an attorney licensed in a foreign jurisdiction, advising a client of the progress of legal proceedings in that foreign jurisdiction, constitute the unlawful practice of law in New York under Judiciary Law § 478.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because, in the circumstances of this case, phone calls to New York by an attorney licensed in a foreign jurisdiction, to advise his client of the progress of legal proceedings in that foreign jurisdiction, did not, without more, constitute the