What is the litigation takeaway from Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann?

Hiring an out-of-state attorney or expert for your legal matter does not guarantee you can sue them in Texas if something goes wrong. If their work is performed in their home state and they haven't purposefully reached into Texas to conduct business, you may be forced to litigate any malpractice or fee disputes in their jurisdiction, significantly increasing your costs and risks.

What is the standard of appellate review for a trial court's ruling on a special appearance in Texas?

The Tenth Court of Appeals reviews a trial court's determination of personal jurisdiction de novo. However, if the trial court issues no findings of fact or conclusions of law, appellate courts presume all factual disputes were resolved in favor of the ruling, provided those implied findings are supported by at least a scintilla of evidence. Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, No. 10-25-00177-CV.

Does contracting with a Texas entity for legal services automatically grant Texas courts personal jurisdiction over a non-resident law firm?

No. Under Texas law, a contract with a Texas resident does not, on its own, establish the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction. The Tenth Court of Appeals in Moir Watershed Servs. emphasized that the 'purposeful availment' analysis focuses on the defendant’s actions and whether they sought some benefit, advantage, or profit by invoking the protections of Texas law.

Which Texas statute governs the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants?

The exercise of jurisdiction over non-resident defendants is governed by the Texas long-arm statute, specifically Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§ 17.041-.045. This statute allows Texas courts to exercise jurisdiction as far as federal due process guarantees permit, requiring that the defendant has established minimum contacts and that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

What are the requirements for establishing specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a Texas legal malpractice suit?

Specific jurisdiction requires that a 'substantial connection' exist between the defendant’s purposeful contacts with Texas and the operative facts of the litigation. As stated in Spir Star AG v. Kimich and applied in Moir Watershed Servs., the liability must arise out of or relate to activities conducted within the forum state, even if those contacts are isolated or sporadic.

Are communications and fee payments from a Texas client sufficient to satisfy 'purposeful availment' for a non-resident attorney?

No. The Tenth Court of Appeals held in Moir Watershed Servs. that communications such as emails, phone calls, and the receipt of payments from a Texas-resident client are generally insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Citing Riverside Exports, Inc. v. B.R. Crane & Equip., LLC, the court noted that such activities are typically 'incidental' rather than a purposeful attempt to conduct business within Texas.

Who carries the burden of proof when a non-resident defendant files a special appearance under Rule 120a?

The plaintiff bears the initial burden to plead allegations sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Texas long-arm statute. Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the non-resident defendant to negate all potential bases of personal jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff. Moir Watershed Servs., LLC citing Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom.

How did the Tenth Court of Appeals rule regarding personal jurisdiction over a New York law firm representing a Texas client?

In Moir Watershed Servs., the court affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim because the New York-based law firm and its employees did not perform work in Texas, did not maintain an office in Texas, and were not licensed to practice law in Texas. The court found that the firm did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas forum merely by representing a Texas client regarding indebtedness on loans.

Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann

Q: What is the summary of Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann?

In Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, a Texas-based company sued a New York law firm in a Texas court for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The New York firm challenged the lawsuit, arguing that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them since they were based in New York and the work was performed there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that merely entering into a contract with a Texas resident does not establish the 'purposeful availment' necessary for jurisdiction. The court concluded that because the legal services were performed outside of Texas and the defendants did not specifically target the Texas market, they lacked the minimum contacts required to be sued in a Texas forum.

Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, 10-25-00177-CV, January 29, 2026.

Synopsis

The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice action against a New York law firm, holding that a contract for legal services with a Texas resident does not, by itself, satisfy the "purposeful availment" requirement for personal jurisdiction. Because the legal work was performed out-of-state and did not involve substantial activity directed toward Texas, the defendants lacked the minimum contacts necessary to be haled into a Texas forum.

Relevance to Family Law

In an increasingly mobile society, Texas family law practitioners frequently engage out-of-state co-counsel, QDRO specialists, or experts to handle property divisions involving foreign assets or interstate custody disputes. This ruling serves as a critical reminder that a Texas client’s engagement of an out-of-state professional does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Texas courts for subsequent professional liability claims. If the "operative facts" of the representation occur outside Texas—such as negotiating a settlement in a foreign jurisdiction or drafting instruments governed by another state's laws—the Texas client may be forced to litigate malpractice or fee disputes in the defendant’s home state, significantly increasing the cost and complexity of recovery.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Moir Watershed Services, LLC ("Moir"), a Texas-based entity, retained the Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, a New York firm, to negotiate indebtedness related to three specific loans. The engagement involved Gurinsky and his employee, Spencer Hofmann, working with lenders on Moir's behalf. Subsequently, Moir filed suit in Ellis County, Texas, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) stemming from the representation. The New York defendants filed a special appearance, supported by affidavits, asserting they were New York residents, lacked continuous or systematic contacts with Texas, and had not purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within the state. Moir countered by pointing to the existence of the legal services contract and the consent forms executed for the representation, arguing that the contract was to be partly performed in Texas. The trial court sustained the special appearance and dismissed the suit for want of personal jurisdiction.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the trial court erred in granting the Appellees' special appearance. This required the court to determine if the New York defendants established sufficient "minimum contacts" with Texas through their legal services contract and subsequent representation of a Texas resident to satisfy federal due process requirements for specific jurisdiction.

Rules Applied

The court applied the de novo standard of review for personal jurisdiction determinations, while giving deference to the trial court's implied findings of fact supported by the evidence. The legal framework centered on the Texas long-arm statute and the federal due process "minimum contacts" test. Key precedents included Spir Star AG v. Kimich, regarding the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction, and Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, emphasizing that purposeful availment requires a defendant to seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by invoking the protections of the forum's laws. The court also relied on Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg to evaluate the "substantial connection" required between the defendant’s forum contacts and the operative facts of the litigation.

Application

The court’s analysis focused on the nature of the "contacts" alleged by Moir. It noted that the mere existence of a contract with a Texas resident is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court examined the "quality and nature" of the interactions rather than the mere number of communications. Because the legal services—negotiating loan debt—were performed by New York-based professionals and did not require significant activity within the borders of Texas, the court found no "purposeful availment." The court reasoned that the defendants did not seek to profit from the Texas market or invoke Texas law; rather, they were simply providing services to a client who happened to be located in Texas. Furthermore, the court found that the "operative facts" of the malpractice claim (the alleged negligence in handling the loans) were not substantially connected to any activities conducted within Texas.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the special appearance. The court held that the New York-based law firm and its employee did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Texas to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court specifically concluded that entering into a contract with a Texas resident for out-of-state legal services does not constitute purposeful availment. The court emphasized that the unilateral activity of the plaintiff (being a resident of Texas) cannot be used to satisfy the requirement of contact between the defendant and the forum state.

Practical Application

For the Texas family law practitioner, this case highlights the jurisdictional risks inherent in interstate collaborations. When bringing in out-of-state "boutique" counsel for specialized matters (e.g., a New York attorney to handle a specific real estate holding in Manhattan during a divorce), you must advise your client that Texas courts may not be available to resolve disputes arising from that representation. Conversely, if you are being retained by an out-of-state client or collaborating with out-of-state counsel, this case reinforces the strength of a special appearance if your work is localized to Texas and you do not "reach out" to the other forum to conduct business there.

Checklists

Gather Your Evidence for a Special Appearance

Affidavits from all firm members confirming a lack of physical presence in the foreign forum.
Documentation showing that all legal work, research, and drafting occurred within the home state.
Timesheets or billing records indicating the location where services were performed.
Evidence that the client initiated the contact, rather than the firm soliciting business in the foreign state.

Defeating Jurisdiction Based on Contract

Argue that the contract's place of performance was the attorney's home office, not the client's residence.
Demonstrate that any communications (emails, calls) to the forum state were merely ancillary to the out-of-state representation.
Identify that the "operative facts" of the alleged malpractice (e.g., a missed deadline or bad advice) occurred entirely outside the forum state.

Citation

Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, No. 10-25-00177-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized in high-net-worth divorces involving "divorce tourism" or strategic out-of-state filings. If a spouse hires a high-profile out-of-state firm to interfere with Texas community property or to influence a Texas proceeding from afar, and that firm commits a tortious act (such as a fraudulent transfer or conspiracy), the Texas spouse may find it difficult to join those out-of-state attorneys in the Texas suit. If the out-of-state attorney’s work was performed in their home state—even if the impact is felt by the Texas community estate—this case provides a roadmap for those attorneys to exit the Texas litigation via a special appearance. Practitioners should consider including forum-selection clauses in all engagement and co-counsel agreements to avoid the jurisdictional "no-man's land" described in Moir. ~~96179313-747a-4613-8ae0-55fdea71e462~~