Court Opinion

ID: 9642796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:09:19.736851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:14.701294
License: Public Domain

FRANCIS, J.
(dissenting). In my view this matter was primarily a New Jersey one. Eeintex, Inc. is a corporation of this State and its place of business is here. Eobert Eeiner and his wife, owners of all but possibly one share of its stock, have been and are now local residents. All of the financial difficulties of the corporation and of Eeiner and his wife involved New Jersey obligations and local creditors except one, the debt due The Chemstrand Corporation. In my judgment the Chemstrand obligation was simply an incidental part of the over-all problem. Accordingly, I believe a New Jersey attorney was required for all legal services rendered except for those furnished in New York in bringing about the settlement of the Chemstrand claim. In fact, if a New Jersey attorney had been engaged originally, and if as an incident of his activities in solving the Seiners’ financial dilemma, he settled the Chemstrand aspect of it, he would have been justified in including a charge for the service even though the work was *318done in New York. By the same token, if the basic situation were reversed and the Chemstrand company were located in New Jersey with all other major aspects of the matter sited in New York, interstate comity would sanction inclusion of a charge by the New York attorney for the work done in New Jersey in settling the out-of-state claim.
I recognize that New Jersej^’s location makes inevitable occasional bistate involvements of the kind now before us. An accommodation must be worked out to govern such situations, which will serve the public need for representation in the handling of New Jersey legal problems by persons who are trained in the law of this State, i. e., duly licensed members of our bar. Regulation of the interests of the public and the bar requires a rule of general application. In cases such as we have here, the only fair and workable rule is one which recognizes that the client’s matter is primarily a New Jersey one and calls for the engagement of a member of our bar for the legal services to be rendered here. And, in that connection, in the interest of interstate amity, if an out-of-state attorney renders legal services in New Jersey which are a minor or incidental part of a total problem which has its principal and primary aspects in his state, he should be allowed to recover in our courts for the work done in this jurisdiction.
Under the circumstances I would remand the cause to the Chancery Division to fix a reasonable fee for the services rendered by plaintiff in settling the Chemstrand debt in New York. Except for that modification, my vote is to affirm the defendants’ judgment.
SciiettiNO, J., joins in this dissent.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WeiNTRaub, and Justices Jaoobs, Peoctoe, Hall and HANEMAN — 5.
For affirmance and modification — Justices FeaNCis and Sd-IETTINO-2.