El Gemayel v. Seaman
New York Court of Appeals
72 N.Y.2d 701 (1988)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Attorney Antoine El Gemayel (plaintiff) sued New York resident Loretta Seaman (defendant) for breach of contract after Seaman refused to pay fees for legal services provided to her by El Gemayel. El Gemayel was an attorney licensed in Lebanon and working in Washington, D.C. as a consultant on Middle Eastern law. El Gemayel was not licensed to practice anywhere in the United States. Seaman sought El Gemayel’s services after Seaman’s granddaughter, Jeneane, was kidnapped by her father and taken to Lebanon in violation of a Massachusetts court order granting custody of Jeneane to Seaman’s daughter, who was the child’s mother. Upon reaching an agreement regarding fees and expenses, El Gemayel provided Seaman and her daughter extensive legal services that ultimately resulted in Jeneane’s return to her mother’s custody in the United States. The majority of El Gemayel’s services were performed in Lebanon, but he also made several phone calls and one visit to Seaman in New York to discuss the progress of the case. When El Gemayel mailed the bill for her services to Seaman in New York, Seaman refused to pay, and El Gemayel filed his action in New York state court to recover his fees and expenses. Seaman argued, among other issues, that the contract for services was unenforceable because El Gemayel had engaged in unauthorized practice of law in the United States. The trial court determined that El Gemayel had not engaged in unauthorized practice of law in New York and ruled in favor of El Gemayal. Seaman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.