Opinion ID: 1684767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compensation for Representation

Text: In paragraphs 5 and 7 of their allegations, the respondents argue that jurisdiction may be premised on the fact that Dill received compensation for representing Norton. As we explained in the preceding part of this opinion, Dill did not represent Norton. Also, to reiterate, the rule is well established that providing out-of-state legal representation is not enough to subject an out-of-state lawyer or law firm to the personal jurisdiction of the state in which a client resides. Cape v. von Maur, 932 F.Supp. at 128. That rule would have little meaning if the firm could not merely invoice for its services without losing the benefit of the rule. For these reasons, this argument does not aid the respondents.