that the Agreement was negotiated, at least in part, in New York.”). Therefore, if characterized as a contract dispute, the preliminary meetings, general conversations, and exchanges of drafts would be particularly relevant to the venue determination. Conversely, the Defendants rely on cases decided in the more traditional legal malpractice context, where, although not a bright line rule, most courts have found that the alleged malpractice, not the entire attorney-client relationship is the relevant inquiry. The location of the attorney is not only relevant to the where the legal work was performed, but is also relevant in regards to any communications. See, e.g., Astor Holdings, Inc. v. Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, P.C., No. 03-CV-1242, 2003 WL 21108316, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2003) (<HOLDING>); Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham, James,
holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding that judge in southern district of new york could authorize wiretap in maryland holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey