Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court
17 Cal. 4th 119, 949 P.2d 1, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 304, 525 U.S. 920 (1998) (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state law firm that is not licensed in California engages in the unauthorized practice of law under Business and Professions Code section 6125 when it performs substantial legal services within California for a California client. While a fee agreement for such services is void as to the illegal services performed in California, the firm may recover fees for services legally performed in its home state if those fees can be severed from the illegal portion of the contract.
Facts:
- Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. (Birbrower) is a law corporation incorporated and based in New York, with none of its attorneys licensed to practice law in California.
- ESQ Business Services, Inc. (ESQ) is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County.
- In July 1992, Birbrower and ESQ executed a fee agreement in New York for Birbrower to represent ESQ in a dispute against Tandem Computers Incorporated, a Delaware corporation based in California.
- The underlying contract between ESQ and Tandem stipulated that California law would govern the agreement.
- Birbrower attorneys traveled to California on several occasions to perform work for ESQ.
- In August 1992, while in California, Birbrower attorneys met with ESQ to discuss strategy and give legal advice, and also met with Tandem representatives, demanding $15 million to settle the dispute.
- In March or April 1993, Birbrower attorneys returned to California to interview potential arbitrators for a planned arbitration to be held in San Francisco.
- In August 1993, a Birbrower attorney was in California assisting with settlement negotiations, which included meeting with ESQ and Tandem and giving ESQ legal advice about a proposed settlement agreement.
- The dispute between ESQ and Tandem was ultimately settled before any arbitration hearing was held.
Procedural Posture:
- ESQ sued Birbrower for legal malpractice in Santa Clara County Superior Court (trial court).
- Birbrower removed the action to federal court and filed a counterclaim for recovery of its legal fees.
- The matter was remanded from federal court back to the superior court.
- ESQ moved for summary adjudication on Birbrower's counterclaim, arguing the fee agreement was unenforceable due to Birbrower's unauthorized practice of law.
- The superior court granted ESQ's motion, finding the fee agreement unenforceable for services performed in California.
- Birbrower, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) to vacate the superior court's order.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition, affirming the trial court's order and holding that the entire fee agreement was unenforceable, including for work performed in New York.
- The California Supreme Court granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an out-of-state law firm, not licensed in California, engage in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6125 by physically entering the state to advise a California client on a matter governed by California law, and if so, is the entire fee agreement for those services unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, the firm engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, rendering the fee agreement unenforceable for services performed in California. Section 6125 prohibits any person not licensed by the State Bar from practicing law 'in California.' The court defines practicing 'in California' as having sufficient contact with a California client to constitute legal representation, with physical presence being a primary factor. Birbrower's attorneys' repeated trips to California to provide legal advice, discuss strategy, and conduct settlement negotiations constituted substantial legal work within the state, thus violating the statute. The court rejected creating a judicial exception for arbitration-related activities, stating that such an exception is a matter for the Legislature. However, the court held that the fee agreement was not entirely void. Under the doctrine of contract severability, the illegal portion of the contract (payment for services in California) can be severed from the legal portion. Therefore, Birbrower may be able to recover fees for services it performed exclusively in New York for its California client.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the activities did not necessarily constitute the practice of law, and summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The majority adopts an overbroad definition of the 'practice of law.' The proper definition, from Baron v. City of Los Angeles, is narrower, covering only activities that involve 'difficult or doubtful legal questions' requiring the application of a 'trained legal mind.' Representation in an arbitration proceeding does not invariably meet this standard because arbitrators are not bound by the rule of law and may decide cases on principles of equity. Many arbitration rules, including those of the American Arbitration Association, permit representation by non-lawyers. Because the Birbrower attorneys' activities were in preparation for an arbitration, it is a triable issue of fact whether their conduct actually constituted the 'practice of law,' and the trial court should not have resolved the issue on a summary adjudication motion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of California's unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statute as applied to out-of-state attorneys, establishing that physical presence combined with providing legal services in the state constitutes a violation. It puts multi-jurisdictional firms on notice that they risk fee forfeiture if they perform work in California without associating local counsel or obtaining pro hac vice admission, even for arbitration or transactional matters. By applying the contract severability doctrine, however, the court moderated the otherwise harsh penalty of complete fee disgorgement. The ruling creates a framework where firms can be compensated for work legally performed in their home state while being penalized for UPL in California, highlighting the ongoing tension between state-based licensing and the realities of modern, interstate legal practice.
Unlock the full brief for Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court