[brief] Defendant [...] is asking this Court to review the trial court’s finding and set it aside, instead finding New Jersey lacks jurisdiction to redress legal malpractice committed by a transactional lawyer working for a law firm with New Jersey offices that resulted in direct damages to a New Jersey client.  Defendants fail to cite a case setting forth any such holding and the reason is obvious: any law firm that maintains a physical office in a state where it also provides representation to a client must certainly anticipate being haled into court there.  The genesis of this litigation is a $2,500,000 wire sent by Plaintiff to its escrow attorney as the first piece of funding a $500,000,000 oil refinery construction project (the “Project”).  Plaintiff retained Defendants, [...] LLP (“[...]”) and [...], Esq. (“[...]”), to ensure the wire would be properly handled and the funding would proceed as intended.  Despite this, Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff’s interests and, as a result, Plaintiff lost the $2,500,000 wire and the total financing meant to fund the Project.  Defendants continue to assert they were practicing law everywhere and nowhere on behalf of Plaintiff and that this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over them.  While Defendants avoided jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by arguing they did not employ lawyers there, did not maintain a physical office location, and had no other ties to the state, those arguments fail in New Jersey where they have had a physical office for decades, employ numerous attorneys admitted here, and solicit clients.  After directing an engagement letter, all billing, and nearly every email to Plaintiff’s CFO, [...] (“[...]”), at Plaintiff’s New Jersey headquarters, Defendants argue this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them.  Further, they assert that an attorney rendering advice in this state on multi-jurisdictional transactional matters is outside the reach of New Jersey’s long-arm statute.  The trial court correctly determined that New Jersey has transient, general, and specific jurisdiction over Defendants.  Transient jurisdiction is appropriate because two general partners and a registered agent of [...] were served here and there is a territorial/physical presence in the state.  General jurisdiction is appropriate because [...] has continuous and systematic contacts with New Jersey through maintenance and daily use of its New Jersey offices, establishment of a New Jersey IOLTA account, solicitation of Plaintiff and other New Jersey clients, and direction of its engagement letter, billing, and communications to Plaintiff in New Jersey.  Specific jurisdiction also exists as Defendants purposefully directed activities to the forum and because their contacts with Plaintiff, its management entity, [...] (“[...]”), and, in particular, Plaintiff’s principal, [...] – who was described by Defendants as Plaintiff’s “quarterback” – resulted in Plaintiff’s losses here.  In this situation, traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice require that Defendants be held to account for their legal malpractice in New Jersey and that their game of cat and mouse be shut down.  The trial court correctly ended this game based upon sound jurisdictional findings.  Finally, Defendants’ argument that principles of judicial estoppel and subject matter jurisdiction compel a different result is nothing more than a red herring without merit that should be ignored.  **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**