2-2 Florida's Long-Arm Statute

• Jurisdiction: United States

2-2 Florida's Long-Arm Statute

Florida's long-arm statute⁵ lists various acts that will subject an out-of-state defendant to suit in Florida. Of these, the ones most likely to be applicable in a legal malpractice lawsuit are:

1) carrying on a business, or having an office, in Florida [paragraph (1)(a) of the statute];
2) committing a tortious act in Florida [paragraph (1)(b) of the statute];
3) causing injury to persons or property in Florida by an act committed outside Florida and the defendant was engaged in either "solicitation or service activities" in Florida [paragraph (1)(f) of the statute]; and
4) failing to perform acts in Florida required by a contract [paragraph (1)(g) of the statute].⁶

Thus, for example, in Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Solitron Devices, Inc.,⁷ a law firm was retained monthly by a client over a period of several years. Finding a "record of substantial activity in Florida,"⁸ the court, on the basis of paragraph (1)(a), had no difficulty denying the law firm's motion to abate.⁹

In Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye, LLP v. Zalis,¹⁰ the court relied on paragraph 1(b) to find jurisdiction existed over a Massachusetts law firm.¹¹ Judge Shepherd dissented due to the fact that the allegedly tortious acts committed in Florida were performed by an "of counsel" lawyer whose authority to bind the firm was disputed.¹²

In Sure Fill & Seal, Inc. v. Carmichael,¹³ the court relied on paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g) to find jurisdiction existed over a California lawyer.¹⁴ Although recognizing that the lawyer never stepped foot in Florida, the court found that his failure to properly handle a lawsuit in California not only resulted in an adverse judgment against the client, it undermined the client's related lawsuit in Florida.¹⁵

--------

Notes:

^[5] Fla. Stat. § 48.193.

^[6] These provisions, of course, can be pled alternatively. See, e.g., Koock v. Sugar & Felsenthal LLP, 2010 WL 1223794 (M.D. Fla. 2010), reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 13176487 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (unsuccessful attempt to hold Illinois law firm amenable to suit in Florida under paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), or (1)(f)).

^[7] Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

^[8] Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

^[9] Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

^[10] Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye, LLP v. Zalis, ...