Legal Opinion
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1998No. S057125PublishedCited by 84 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*124Opinion
CHIN, J.
Business and Professions Code section 6125 states: “No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.”1 We must decide whether an out-of-state law firm, not licensed to practice law in this state, violated section 6125 when it performed legal services in California for a California-based client under a fee agreement stipulating that California law would govern all matters in the representation.
Although we are aware of the interstate nature of modem law practice and mindful of the reality that large firms often conduct activities…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Fred G. Stillman v. A.A. LamarqueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Winterrowd v. American General Annuity InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. HazardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.