Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Maryland consisted of phone calls and correspondence betweenthem in Germany and Cape in Maryland. Defendants neverpracticed law in Maryland, never advertised or solicited businessin this State and never maintained an office here. At no timeduring the course of their representation of TCEC did anyDefendants or their agents travel to Maryland or appear in aMaryland court on behalf of Plaintiffs or undertake to performany services in Maryland.Id. at 125-26 (emphasis added). After noting that “[b]road constructions of generaljurisdiction should be generally disfavored,” the Court held that “[t]here can be no questionon this record that general jurisdiction is lacking and the Court need pursue the issue nofurther.” Id. at 127. The Court also went on to hold that Maryland lacked specific jurisdictionover the nonresident attorneys. Id. at 128.Here, as in Cape, RRA does not maintain an office in Maryland and none of itslawyers are licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland. Rather, RRA is a Florida lawfirm with principal places of business in Florida and New York. RRA’s contacts withMaryland have not been “continuous and systematic.” Maryland does not have generaljurisdiction over RRA or Rothstein.Specific JurisdictionUnlike the contacts required for general jurisdiction, contacts required for specificjurisdiction need not rise to the level of “continuous and systematic.” First American First,Inc. v. National Association of Bank Women, 802 F.2d 1511, 1516 (4 th Cir. 1986), citingHellicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8 (1984). In determiningwhether specific jurisdiction exists, the Court considers “(1) the extent to which thedefendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activitiesin the State; (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of those activities directed at the18