Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (Esq Bsuiness, Services, Incorp.)

BIRBROWER, MONTALBANO, CONDON & FRANK et al., Petitioners v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent ESQ BSUINESS SERVICES, INCORPORATED et al., Real Parties in Interest No. S057125 C.A. 6th, No. H014880 California Supreme Court Filed January 15, 1997
        Petition for review GRANTED.


(Editor Note - The above-mentioned Court of Appeal case has been granted review by the California Supreme Court. For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Journal`s Ruling Column brief which summarized the earlier decision of the lower court.)


ATTORNEYS

Lack of California Law License Defeats New York Attorneys' Entitlement to Fees For California Representation.
        The C.A. 6th has found that a New York law firm was not entitled to compensation for legal services rendered in California because it did not have a license to practice in California.
        In July 1992 ESQ Business Services Inc. retained the New York law firm of Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank to represent it in contract claims against Tandem Computers. Even though none of the attorneys in the Birbrower law firm was licensed to practice law in California, the firm did not associate in California counsel. The firm counseled ESQ in California, made settlement demands to Tandem for ESQ, negotiated and drafted a settlement agreement, and filed a demand for arbitration. ESQ later sued the Birbrower law firm for legal malpractice. Birbrower cross-complained for attorney fees pursuant to an attorney fee agreement. ESQ moved for summary adjudication or summary judgment on the validity of the attorney fee agreements. The trial court concluded that the attorney fee agreements were not enforceable because Birbrower had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in California. Birbrower petitioned for a writ of mandate.
        The C.A. 6th denied the petition. Business and Professions Code Section 6125 prohibits anyone who is not an active member of the California State Bar from practicing law in the state. The Birbrower activities in representing ESQ against Tandem constituted the practice of law and violated Section 6125. The violation of Section 6125 made the attorney fee agreements unenforceable as to the services rendered in California. Birbrower would have to pursue its entitlement to compensation for services rendered in New York under a quantum meruit claim. Summary adjudication was proper.

        Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (Esq Bsuiness Services, Incorp.) C.A. 6th, No. H014880, filed September 25, 1996, by Cottle, J.
        The full text of this case appears in 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11761, September 27, 1996,