In an opinion issued yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a Nevada client had made the requisite prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over its erstwhile Texas-based law firm.  Fulbright & Jaworski LLP v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (2015).  The plaintiff sued the Texas law firm for breach of fiduciary duty arising from legal advice relating to a Texas real estate project.  The district court found that the plaintiff had made the requisite prima facie showing as to both general and specific jurisdiction.  Readers may recall that general jurisdiction arises when a nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic so as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum state.  Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, exists when the cause of action arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

In an opinion by Chief Justice James W. Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the following were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over the law firm:

An attorney with the law firm had been a registered lobbyist for two Nevada legislative sessions; and

Seven attorneys with the law firm had been admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of representing two different clients in lengthy litigation.

The Supreme Court noted that while these activities “arguably” were substantial, they presumably comprised only a fraction of the law firm’s overall business.  Moreover, it found that to conclude otherwise would subject the firm to litigation in Nevada by any of its world-wide clients.

The plaintiff argued that the law firm subjected itself to special jurisdiction by agreeing to represent a Nevada-based client and directing correspondence to Nevada.  The plaintiff also alleged that special jurisdiction was established when one of the law firm’s partners participated in two investor presentations in Nevada.  The Supreme Court likewise rejected this showing, finding that representing a client on an out-of-state matter does not necessarily subject an out-of-state law firm to specific personal jurisdiction.  In doing so, the Nevada Supreme Court relied heavily on a recent holding by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Newsome v. Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257 (1oth Cir. 2013).  In doing so, the Supreme Court specifically agreed with the following two principles:

lack of solicitation by the out-of-state firm is “highly relevant to the inquiry of whether the firm purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in Nevada; and

an out-of-state firm’s representation of a client on a non-Nevada “matter” is highly relevant.

Finally, the presence of the law firm’s partner in Nevada was, in the Supreme Court’s view, insufficient because the plaintiff had failed to show how that related to its causes of action.

The Supreme Court left some daylight for the plaintiff, however.  It found that because additional evidence relating to jurisdiction may have been produced during discovery that was ongoing during the pendency of the petition, the plaintiff is entitled to attempt to make its prima facie showing with this additional evidence.