NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP

v.

COLLEEN LAMB-FERRARA, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 29, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D23-0155 Lower Tribunal No. 20-174-M ________________

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Appellant,

vs.

Colleen Lamb-Ferrara, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge.

Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., and David R. Atkinson and Lauren V. Purdy (Jacksonville), for appellants.

Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, LLP, and Russell A. Yagel and Matthew O. Hutchinson, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J.

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (“Neal, Gerber”), an Illinois law firm, appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order denying its motion to dismiss for lack

BACKGROUND

Neal, Gerber is a law firm organized pursuant to the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act. Its principal place of business and headquarters is in Chicago, Illinois, where it maintains a single office. In 2008, Neal, Gerber was retained by Matthew Lamb and his wife to prepare their respective wills and update their estate plans. Mr. Lamb, a prominent artist owning considerable property and assets around the world, designated Florida as his domicile in his will and estate plans. He passed away on February 18, 2012, and his widow, in her capacity as executor of Mr. Lamb’s will, retained Neal, Gerber in connection with the Estate of Matthew Lamb. Neal, Gerber advised that Florida counsel be retained to commence probate proceedings for the Estate in Florida. The executor thereafter retained Florida counsel and a probate action was filed on April⁴, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida (the “Probate Action”).

1 Appellees Colleen Lamb-Ferrara and Rosemarie Lamb are the daughters of Mr. Lamb and his wife, Rosemarie Lamb. They are suing in their capacities as successor personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Lamb and successor co-trustees of the Matthew Lamb and Rosemarie Lamb Trusts.

a. [Neal, Gerber] has operated, conducted or carried on business in this State by appearing before the Court in the Probate Case and providing legal services to [Lamb-]Gabler as personal representative of Matthew’s Estate and/or for the putative benefit of Mathew’s Estate. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)1.

b. [Neal, Gerber] committed tortious acts within this State. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)2.

On April¹², 2021, Neal, Gerber filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Neal, Gerber submitted various affidavits from its attorneys. Collectively, these affidavits attested that all the services Neal, Gerber performed throughout its engagement were performed from its office in Chicago, Illinois. Neal, Gerber denied any of its lawyers were ever physically present in the State of Florida while performing legal services related to the Estate of Matthew Lamb. It also denied appearing as counsel of record in the Probate Action and denied filing or serving any pleadings or papers, including any notices of appearance, in

6. All pleadings I filed and activities I undertook on

behalf of [the personal representative] in the Probate [Action] were at the direction and control of [Neal, Gerber].

7. I never had direct communications with [the personal representative] without [the two Neal, Gerber attorneys that directed me] or other [Neal, Gerber] attorneys’ participation nor did I take any instructions from [the personal representative].

8. [Neal, Gerber] prepared the majority of all filings and reviewed and approved any filings I prepared and filed in the Probate [Action].

9. During the course of my representation of [the personal representative], I had hundreds of communications, via telephone, text, e-mail, letters or otherwise, with representatives of [Neal, Gerber].

2 The hearing was not transcribed.

ANALYSIS

A. The Two Step Inquiry.

A trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is subject to de novo review. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2002). See also Concordia Lutheran Ministries v. Wills, 359 So. 3d 396, 400–01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“When the trial court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, our review of an order on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is strictly de novo.” (citing Stonepeak Partners, LP v. Tall Tower Cap., LLC, 231 So. 3d 548, 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Rautenberg v. Falz, 193 So. 3d 924, 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016))).

The first prong—i.e., the statutory prong—of the Venetian Salami standard is governed by Florida's long-arm statute and bestows broad jurisdiction on Florida courts. . . . The second prong—i.e., the constitutional prong—is controlled by United States Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Due Process Clause and imposes a more restrictive requirement. A court can exercise personal jurisdiction only if the foreign [defendant] maintains “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”

Wendt, 822 So. 2d at 1257 (quoting Execu–Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 2000)). “Moreover, a showing of

B. The Long-Arm Statute.

Appellees alleged sufficient facts to satisfy Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes. As Florida courts have previously held, personal jurisdiction under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute may extend to nonresident defendants that perform estate services for an estate probated in Florida, even where those legal services may have been performed outside of Florida. For example, in Rogers & Wells v. Winston, 662 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the Fourth District held the Florida court had personal jurisdiction over a New York law firm employed by the personal representative of a Florida estate to perform legal services for the Florida estate. Id. at 1304. The court reasoned that the law firm “was doing business in Florida and should have foreseen that it would be haled into a Florida court in the event of litigation over the services performed for the estate.” Id. The court further held this was true “[e]ven if virtually all of the services provided by [the law firm] were performed in New York, because [the law firm] was employed to

3 Prior to 2013, section 48.193(1)(a)(2) was numbered as section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes. See Ch. 13-164, § 1, Laws of Fla.

C. Constitutional Due Process

As to minimum contacts, the trial court properly concluded that sufficient minimum contacts were shown. The test is whether “the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 287 (1980). The Beta Drywall court held that the New York law firm had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process because:

9 So. 3d at 653. In Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F. 3d at 259, moreover, the Eleventh Circuit held that the requirements of due process were satisfied because the attorneys rendered estate planning services to the decedent knowing that he resided in Florida, and the defendants all knew that the will would be probated, and the trust administered, in Florida. The court concluded minimum contacts with the forum had been established because the attorneys “drafted documents intending for Florida law to govern the disposition of assets located in Florida.” Id. The court further explained: The defendants are not being haled into a Florida court as the result of any random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or because of any unilateral activity by the Decedent. The nature of the professional services rendered in this case was such that the defendants were fully aware that their actions or omissions would have a substantial effect in Florida. They should have reasonably anticipated the

Id. Here, Neal, Gerber rendered estate planning services to Matthew Lamb with full awareness that he was domiciled in Florida and that his will would be probated in Florida. As part of its representation of the personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Lamb, moreover, Neal, Gerber admitted it “worked closely with the personal representative’s Florida counsel[.]” Neal, Gerber also did not expressly deny the allegations contained in the affidavit submitted by Florida counsel, namely that Neal, Gerber was “lead counsel,” that it directed Florida counsel’s actions in the Probate Action, and that it prepared the majority of filings and reviewed and approved all filings prepared by Florida counsel in the Probate Action. As such, Neal, Gerber should have reasonably foreseen being haled into court in Florida for issues arising from the activities it directed into Florida, including the estate planning services it provided Matthew Lamb, domiciled in Florida, and the legal services it provided the personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Lamb, including telephonically appearing on her behalf during a hearing in the Probate Action in Florida. Affirmed.