Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, S057125

Citation949 P.2d 1,17 Cal.4th 119,70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304
Decision Date05 January 1998
Docket NumberNo. S057125,S057125
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties, 17 Cal.4th 643A, 949 P.2d 1, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 51, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 107 BIRBROWER, MONTALBANO, CONDON & FRANK, P.C., et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; ESQ BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Real Party in Interest

Page 304

70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304
17 Cal.4th 119, 17 Cal.4th 643A, 949 P.2d 1,
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 51,
98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 107
BIRBROWER, MONTALBANO, CONDON & FRANK, P.C., et al., Petitioners,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent;
ESQ BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Real Party in Interest.
No. S057125.
Supreme Court of California
Jan. 5, 1998.
As Modified Feb. 25, 1998.

Page 305

[17 Cal.4th 123] [949 P.2d 2] Halley, Cornel & Lynch, Roger C. Peters, San Francisco, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, David P. Eby, William J. Elfving and Scott R. Mosko, San Jose, for Petitioners.

Latham & Watkins, Joseph A. Wheelock, Jr., and Julie V. King, Costa Mesa, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Hopkins & Carley, Jon Michaelson, Denise Y. Yamamoto and Robert W. Ricketson, San Jose, for Real Party in Interest.

Diane C. Yu, Lawrence C. Yee, Mark Torres-Gil, San Francisco, and Robert M. Sweet as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Page 306

CHIN, Justice.

Business and Professions Code section 6125 states: "No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the [17 Cal.4th 124] State Bar." 1 We must decide whether an out-of-state law firm, not licensed to practice law in this state, violated section 6125 when it performed legal services in California for a California-based client under a fee agreement stipulating that California law would govern all matters in the representation.

Although we are aware of the interstate nature of modern law practice and mindful of the reality that large firms often conduct activities and serve clients in several states, we do not believe these facts excuse law firms from complying with section 6125. Contrary to the Court of Appeal, however, we do not believe the Legislature intended section 6125 to apply to those services an out-of-state firm renders in its home state. We therefore conclude that, to the extent defendant law firm Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. (Birbrower), practiced [949 P.2d 3] law in California without a license, it engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in this state. (§ 6125.) We also conclude that Birbrower's fee agreement with real party in interest ESQ Business Services, Inc. (ESQ), is invalid to the extent it authorizes payment for the substantial legal services Birbrower performed in California. If, however, Birbrower can show it generated fees under its agreement for limited services it performed in New York, and it earned those fees under the otherwise invalid fee agreement, it may, on remand, present to the trial court evidence justifying its recovery of fees for those New York services. Conversely, ESQ will have an opportunity to produce contrary evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeal judgment in part and reverse it in part, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts with respect to the unauthorized practice of law question are essentially undisputed. Birbrower is a professional law corporation incorporated in New York, with its principal place of business in New York. During 1992 and 1993, Birbrower attorneys, defendants Kevin F. Hobbs and Thomas A. Condon (Hobbs and Condon), performed substantial work in California relating to the law firm's representation of ESQ. Neither Hobbs nor Condon has ever been licensed to practice law in California. None of Birbrower's attorneys were licensed to practice law in California during Birbrower's ESQ representation.

ESQ is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County. In July 1992, the parties negotiated and executed the fee agreement in New York, providing that Birbrower would perform legal [17 Cal.4th 125] services for ESQ, including "All matters pertaining to the investigation of and prosecution of all claims and causes of action against TANDEM COMPUTERS INCORPORATED [Tandem]." The "claims and causes of action" against Tandem, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County, California, related to a software development and marketing contract between Tandem and ESQ dated March 16, 1990 (Tandem Agreement). The Tandem Agreement stated that "The internal laws of the State of California (irrespective of its choice of law principles) shall govern the validity of this Agreement, the construction of its terms, and the interpretation and enforcement of the rights and duties of the parties hereto." Birbrower asserts, and ESQ disputes, that ESQ knew Birbrower was not licensed to practice law in California.

While representing ESQ, Hobbs and Condon traveled to California on several occasions. In August 1992, they met in California with ESQ and its accountants. During these meetings, Hobbs and Condon discussed various matters related to ESQ's dispute with Tandem and strategy for resolving the dispute. They made recommendations and gave advice. During this California trip, Hobbs and Condon also met with Tandem representatives on four or five occasions during

Page 307

a two-day period. At the meetings, Hobbs and Condon spoke on ESQ's behalf. Hobbs demanded that Tandem pay ESQ $15 million. Condon told Tandem he believed that damages would exceed $15 million if the parties litigated the dispute.

Around March or April 1993, Hobbs, Condon, and another Birbrower attorney visited California to interview potential arbitrators and to meet again with ESQ and its accountants. Birbrower had previously filed a demand for arbitration against Tandem with the San Francisco offices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). In August 1993, Hobbs returned to California to assist ESQ in settling the Tandem matter. While in California, Hobbs met with ESQ and its accountants to discuss a proposed settlement agreement Tandem authored. Hobbs also met with Tandem representatives to discuss possible changes in the proposed agreement. Hobbs gave ESQ legal advice during this trip, including his opinion that ESQ should not settle with Tandem on the terms proposed.

ESQ eventually settled the Tandem dispute, and the matter never went to arbitration. But before the settlement, ESQ and Birbrower modified the contingency fee [949 P.2d 4] agreement. 2 The modification changed the fee arrangement from contingency to fixed fee, providing that ESQ would pay Birbrower[17 Cal.4th 126] over $1 million. The original contingency fee arrangement had called for Birbrower to receive "one-third (1/3) of all sums received for the benefit of the Clients ... whether obtained through settlement, motion practice, hearing, arbitration, or trial by way of judgment, award, settlement, or otherwise...."

In January 1994, ESQ sued Birbrower for legal malpractice and related claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Birbrower removed the matter to federal court and filed a counterclaim, which included a claim for attorney fees for the work it performed in both California and New York. The matter was then remanded to the superior court. There ESQ moved for summary judgment and/or adjudication on the first through fourth causes of action of Birbrower's counterclaim, which asserted ESQ and its representatives breached the fee agreement. ESQ argued that by practicing law without a license in California and by failing to associate legal counsel while doing so, Birbrower violated section 6125, rendering the fee agreement unenforceable. Based on these undisputed facts, the Santa Clara Superior Court granted ESQ's motion for summary adjudication of the first through fourth causes of action in Birbrower's counterclaim. The court also granted summary adjudication in favor of ESQ's third and fourth causes of action in its second amended complaint, seeking declaratory relief as to the validity of the fee agreement and its modification. The court concluded that: (1) Birbrower was "not admitted to the practice of law in California"; (2) Birbrower "did not associate California counsel"; 3 (3) Birbrower "provided legal services in this state"; and (4) "The law is clear that no one may recover compensation for services as an attorney in this state unless he or she was a member of the state bar at the time those services were performed."

Although the trial court's order stated that the fee agreements were unenforceable, at the hearing on the summary adjudication motion, the trial court also observed: "It seems to me that those are some of the issues that this Court has to struggle with, and then it becomes a question of if they aren't allowed to collect their attorney's fees here, I don't think that puts the attorneys in a position from being precluded from collecting all of their attorney's fees, only those fees probably that were generated by virtue of work that they performed in California and

Page 308

not that work that was performed in New York."

[17 Cal.4th 127] In granting limited summary adjudication, the trial court left open the following issues for resolution: ESQ's malpractice action against Birbrower, and the remaining causes of action in Birbrower's counterclaim, including Birbrower's fifth cause of action for quantum meruit (seeking the reasonable value of legal services provided).

Birbrower petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the summary adjudication order. The Court of Appeal denied Birbrower's petition and affirmed the trial court's order, holding that Birbrower violated section 6125. The Court of Appeal also concluded that Birbrower's violation barred the firm from recovering its legal fees under the written fee agreement, including fees generated in New York by the attorneys when they were physically present in New York, because the agreement included payment for California or "local" services for a California client in California. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, however, in deciding that Birbrower could pursue its remaining claims against ESQ,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Hurley, E023510.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 2, 1999
    ...for construction, and courts should not indulge in it." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 131-132, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1.) Section 11580.2(p)(3) plainly declares that underinsurance coverage is not available un......
  • Fair v. Bakhtiari
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 2011
    ...and severability may apply, in the discretion of the trial court].) Marathon cited Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1( Birbrower ), among others. “In [Birbrower ], a law firm licensed in New York, but not California,......
  • Shopoff & Cavallo Llp v. Hyon, A114918.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2008
    ...and the entire transaction is illegal and unenforceable.' [Citation.]" (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 138 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1] (Birbrower); see also Dunkin v. Boskey, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 171, 196.) Here, the charging liens may o......
  • Ting v. At & T, C 01-02969 BZ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • January 15, 2002
    ...Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 124, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669.21 See also Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 119, 138, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1 (1998). In Armendariz, the Court found that the only effective way to sever the multiple unlawful pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Miracle On Eagle Street: New York's Temporary Practice Rule
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 5, 2016
    ...do so. This is a direct response to the California Supreme Court's seminal decision in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., 17 Cal.4th 119, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 920 (1998) (Birbrower), discussed in more detail below. It is also consistent with Judge Weinfeld's holding in Willi......
2 provisions
  • Chapter 76, AB 383 – Maintenance of the codes
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2013
    ...2086 of the 1997-98 Regular Session, it is the intentof the Legislature to respond to the holding in Birbrower v. SuperiorCourt (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, as modified at 17 Cal.4th 643a(hereafter Birbrower), to provide a procedure for nonresidentattorneys who are not licensed in this state to a......
  • Chapter 71, SB 1304 – Maintenance of the codes
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2014
    ...2086 of the 1997-98 Regular Session, it is the intentof the Legislature to respond to the holding in Birbrower v. SuperiorCourt (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, to provide a procedure for nonresidentattorneys who are not licensed in this state to appear in Californiaarbitration proceedings. (2) In en......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT