Williamson v. John D. Quinn Construction Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
537 F. Supp. 613 (1982)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
The John D. Quinn Construction Company (Quinn) (defendant) entered a construction-related arbitration with another company represented by a New York law firm. During the arbitration, Quinn allegedly authorized the New York law firm to retain Williamson PA (Williamson) (plaintiff), a New Jersey law firm with expertise in construction litigation to assist in Quinn’s representation. Quinn and Williamson entered a retention agreement on the responsibilities of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Rehill. The agreement provided that Mr. Williamson, who was admitted to practice in New York and in New Jersey, would supervise strategy and activities. The agreement further provided that Mr. Rehill, who was admitted to practice in New Jersey, would engage in day-to-day services. Following the conclusion of the arbitration, Quinn refused to pay Williamson, and Williamson filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York seeking fees for its representation. Quinn argued that neither the firm of Williamson PA nor Mr. Rehill were authorized to practice in New York and that the firm was thereby foreclosed from recovery of fees for its services in the arbitration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weinfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.