with whom KERN and NEBEKER, Associate Judges, concur, dissenting from the result:
Today we draw the curtain on a long-playing act of virtual judicial futility. Our resolution of this appeal has no precedential significance, as the court is split 4-4 on the significant legal issue presented. The lead opinion incorrectly is designated as a “per curiam” opinion. It cannot be, as a per curiam opinion speaks for the court, whereas the lead opinion speaks only for four judges. Similarly, there is no holding here; there is nothing more than a judgment of reversal. Only by virtue of Judge KELLY’s concurrence in the result of reversal is the trial court’s order overturned.
It is that result from which I respectfully dissent. In doing so, substantial reference is made to the lead opinion which four of my colleagues endorse. It should be noted that never before have we failed to have a majority (or even a plurality) opinion in an en banc case. The four-judge opinion is circuitous in its reasoning, as quite obviously it seeks incorrectly to have the requisite statutory analysis swallowed up by due process considerations. A major portion of the four-judge opinion consists of the discussion of, and out-of-context quotations from, other opinions which deal with significantly different statutes and/or substantially different factual situations.1
*999It is important to recognize what the four-judge opinion does not do. Since it has no efficacy beyond this case, it does not change the law in this jurisdiction. Remaining controlling on the issues before us are the Supreme Court’s decision in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), and our en banc decision in Environmental Research International, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., D.C.App., 355 A.2d 808 (1976) (en banc). I firmly believe that those two decisions, considered together with virtually all other relevant authorities, compel affirmance of the trial court in this case.
I
This is a rather simple case, which was treated simply — and correctly — by the trial court. A Florida law firm was representing a client in the defense of a suit claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of foreign goods.2 As is often true, the firm had little or no expertise in those areas of the law, and it engaged William Mouzavires to assist it in the Florida litigation. He, like many other patent attorneys, has his office in the District of Columbia.
When a dispute arose between plaintiff and defendants as to plaintiff’s fee, plaintiff sought to sue the Florida lawyers (with service by means of certified mail sent to their North Miami Beach office) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Jurisdiction over the Florida defendants was predicated upon one of the six provisions of our long-arm statute, namely, D.C. Code 1973, § 13 — 423(a)(1). Defendants promptly moved to quash the service of process and to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Their able counsel found it necessary to cite only one case in support of his position: Environmental Research, supra. In opposing that motion, plaintiff’s counsel cited just two opinions: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and the dissent in Environmental Research. The experienced trial judge, undoubtedly satisfied that the issue was controlled by Environmental Research, took little time in granting the motion to quash.
These appeals initially were decided by a divided division of the court. Chief Judge Newman and Judge Mack apparently viewed what I perceived to be controlling precedents differently than I, and voted to reverse the trial court’s action. I dissented.3 Defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc was granted, and the division’s opinions were vacated. Hence, they were not published in Atlantic 2d.
Today, while only four members of the court concur in the lead opinion, a fifth concurs in the result of reversal. Thus, once again, as I see it, we are faced with a misapplication of established law. It should be noted that this is not the first case in which Environmental Research has been avoided. In Rose v. Silver, D.C.App., 394 A.2d 1368 (1978), another division of the court — which included Judges NEWMAN and MACK — sought to distinguish the indistinguishable and resolved a long-arm case favorably to a plaintiff in a manner which was inconsistent with Environmental Research.4 I shall not dwell here upon *1000what I consider to be the flaws in Rose v. Silver, I expressed them in a separate opinion stating why I voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc in that case. Rose v. Silver, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 787 (1979) (HARRIS, J., reasons for voting to grant rehearing en banc).
II
If the en banc court had not vacated the earlier division majority opinion, it would have had a precedential life of its own. That life would have been a troubled one, for it was obvious to any objective observer that the division opinion and Environmental Research were in irreconcilable conflict. Now, while the result of reversal is obtained, no precedent emerges from this case. Nonetheless, I deem it necessary to address what strike me as the fatal flaws in the per curiam opinion.5
To set the proper background, I quote the sole provision of our long-arm statute upon which jurisdiction is claimed to be based. Section 13-423 of the Code provides in pertinent part:
(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s—
(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia.
I turn now to the faulty premise — or, perhaps more accurately, to the two interrelated faulty premises of the four-judge opinion. That opinion states in part:
[Tjhe legislative history of our long-arm statute, as well as decisions by the courts of Maryland and Virginia construing their comparable statutory provisions, compels the conclusion that the “transacting any business” provision is coextensive with the due process clause. * * *
******
Decisions in this jurisdiction interpreting the “transacting any business” provision are but applications of this principle. It is now well-settled that the “transacting any business” provision embraces those contractual activities of a nonresident defendant which cause a consequence here. [Ante, at 992-993; citations and footnote omitted.]
Viewed from an overall perspective, the four-judge opinion would blur the controlling statute into obscurity and predicate resolution of the case on an abstruse due process theory. However, that may not properly be done. The first sentence quoted above is essentially an oversimplification. The correct standard, as expressed in Environmental Research, is that long-arm statutes such as that before us “permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution.” The four-judge opinion seeks to convey the impression that to the extent that a long-arm statute and the due process clause may be deemed to be coextensive, the former is subsumed by the latter, which is not true. If it were, of course, there would be no need for the long-arm statute; actions against nonresident defendants could be predicated juris-dictionally solely on the due process clause. However, as has been stated by the Fourth Circuit:
Generally, the application of long arm statutes involves two steps. It is necessary to determine first whether the statute permits service of process on the nonresident defendant, and second, whether *1001service under the statute violates the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution, [Haynes v. James H. Carr, Inc., 427 F.2d 700, 703 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 238, 27 L.Ed.2d 245 (1970).] [6]
Thus, any analysis of whether the defendants properly may be subjected to the Superior Court’s jurisdiction not only must begin with, but moreover must turn upon, whether they transacted business within the District of Columbia. The last sentence quoted above from the four-judge opinion — “that the ‘transacting any business’ provision embraces those contractual activities of a nonresident defendant which cause a consequence here” — is both conceptually wrong and unsupported by any sound authority.
Having thus established a flawed analytical framework, the four-judge opinion proceeds to state the issue as follows:
Thus, to determine whether the statute can reach the conduct at issue, we must consider whether appellees had sufficient contacts with the District such that the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. [Ante, at 993].
That statement evades the underlying question of whether the defendants met the initial jurisdictional prerequisite of having transacted any business here. As one secondary authority has noted, “no abstract test for determining whether or not a person transacts any business within [a] state has been articulated, and accordingly each case must be decided on its particular facts.” Annot., 27 A.L.R.3d 397, 429 (1969). This court has no authority to act in a fashion which serves to amend the statute. As the Fourth Circuit correctly has observed: “[I]t is clear that at least where the legislature has acted, even though the [long-arm] statute may not go to the limits of due process, the courts of a state may not go further and assert jurisdiction over persons not embraced within that legislation.” Beaty v. M. S. Steel Co., 401 F.2d 157, 161 (4th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1049, 89 S.Ct. 686, 21 L.Ed.2d 691 (1969). Yet that is precisely what the resolution of these appeals by the majority does, as reflected by the four-judge opinion’s ultimate conclusion:
In sum, appellees voluntarily initiated, and entered into, a contract with one they knew to be located in the District and engaged in a transaction which had a substantial connection with the District and which they foresaw would have consequences here. In so doing, appellees have invoked the benefits and protections of the District’s laws. [Ante, at 997; footnote and citation omitted.]
That summation is fallacious for two reasons. First, the defendant Florida lawyers did not invoke “the benefits and protections of the District’s laws”; the plaintiff did. Second, even had they done so, that would be but one factor to consider in deciding the underlying jurisdictional question under the statute, namely, whether they transacted business here. The resolution of that question should be controlled by Environmental Research and by other relevant authorities.
III
As has been noted, the Florida defendants did engage the District of Columbia plaintiff to assist them in a Florida lawsuit. Plaintiff performed some of his services in Florida, some in Virginia, and some in the District. Defendants have had no contacts with the District of Columbia other than their utilization of plaintiff’s services in connection with the Florida suit. There is no claim that any of the defendants entered *1002the District of Columbia to negotiate with plaintiff or to work with him.7 Apparently the few communications from defendants to plaintiff were be telephone or mail (the four-judge opinion cites one telephone call and one letter), and were informational in character.8 Additionally, defendants derived no direct economic benefit from their relationship with the plaintiff. At all times it was the plaintiff who was transacting business in the District, not the defendants. That situation is precisely the type which we held in Environmental Research not to confer jurisdiction over nonresident defendants under § 13-423(a)(l) of the Code. The following portion of our Environmental Research decision should be dispositive of this case:
Appellant does not assert that the limited correspondence or telephone communications engaged in between it and the appellees satisfy the constitutional requirement for in personam jurisdiction. Rather, the thrust of appellant’s argument is that since it was performing services in the District of Columbia for the benefit of appellees, its own activities here constituted a proper basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over ap-pellees. To accept such a position would be effectively to remove any protection which the due process clause affords a nonresident defendant. The position for which appellant argues has been rejected by the Supreme Court:
The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. [Citations omitted.] [9]
Thus, a plaintiff cannot rely on his own activities, rather than those of a defendant, to establish the requisite minimal contacts for personal jurisdiction. The mere fact that a nonresident has retained the professional services of a District of Columbia firm, thereby setting into motion the resident party’s own activities within this jurisdiction, does not constitute an invocation by the nonresident of the benefits and protections of the District’s laws. [355 A.2d at 812 (footnotes . omitted).]
IV
The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the majority, in voting for reversal, is unwilling to follow such clear and controlling precedents as Environmental Research *1003and Hanson v. Denckla.10 The principles set forth in those cases (and others) readily have been followed by us before. Illustratively, in Basil, Inc. v. Guardino, D.C.App., 424 A.2d 70, 77 (1980) (KELLY, J.), we recognized:
Furthermore, in determining whether an instate activity may serve as the basis of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff’s performance does not control: “It is [the defendant’s] activity in the state which must provide the basis for jurisdiction.” [Citations omitted; see also id., at 74 & n.6.]
The majority’s disposition of this case dis-serves not merely the losing parties, whose due process rights are being violated, but also the bench and the bar with respect to future cases. Environmental Research, which unquestionably has constituted and still constitutes binding authority in this jurisdiction, holds that in this type of situation, a resident professional may not bring suit here against a nonresident client based upon work which has been done by the resident professional in the District of Columbia. See also Zyblut v. Shippers Best Express, Inc., D.C.App., 408 A.2d 978 (1979). The five judges who have voted for reversal also run afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). In concluding that due process considerations precluded long-arm jurisdiction in that case, the Supreme Court specifically reaffirmed the principles of Hanson v. Denckla. The Court analyzed the record and found
a total absence of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma. They close no sales and perform no services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law. * * * [444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. at 566.]
A comparable absence of affiliating circumstances exists in this case.
The result reached by my five colleagues not only is unprecedented; it is contrary to all applicable and controlling precedents. While the four-judge opinion has no vitality as to future cases, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of these appeals.
. For example, the opinion purports to find support in Pedi Bares, Inc. v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 567 F.2d 933 (10th Cir. 1977). Ante, at 994. However, even a fleeting review of that opinion reveals that the Kansas *999long-arm statute with which that court dealt is quite different from the “transacting any business” statute which is before us (the Kansas statute has a single-act provision, permitting the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident when the sole basis is a contract with a resident to be performed in Kansas). The same is true of McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), which dealt with a statute providing long-arm jurisdiction over nonresident insurance companies with in-state policyholders. [Our comparable provision is D.C.Code 1973, § 13 — 423(a)(6).] Reliance upon inapposite cases does little but mislead.
. The Florida law firm is Baxter, Friedman, Robbins & Fisher. It and its partners were sued by Mouzavires. Since there are cross-appeals in this case, I refer generally to the Florida lawyers as the defendants and to the District of Columbia lawyer as the plaintiff.
. The division’s opinions were issued on December 21, 1979.
. The Rose v. Silver division’s assertion that that case was “materially different from” Envi*1000ronmental Research [394 A.2d at 1369] was, in my view, not merely dubious, but manifestly inaccurate.
. I see no need to deal other than in this footnote with Chief Judge NEWMAN’S brief concurring opinion. It is joined in by Judges MACK and FERREN; those three constituted the division in Rose v. Silver, to which I have referred above. I believe it is fair to state that they view the relevant section of the long-arm statute as a meaningless appendage which is to be ignored in favor of due process considerations. They apparently feel that if any nonresident utilizes the services of a District of Columbia resident, the nonresident becomes subject to suit here irrespective of whether the provisions of the long-arm statute provide for such jurisdiction. Legislating, of course, is not a proper judicial function.
. This principal is well established. Illustratively, the four-judge opinion quotes the Supreme Court’s recent recognition that “the proper approach [is] to test jurisdiction against both statutory and constitutional standards.” Ante, at 992, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 290, 100 S.ct. 559, 563, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). See also, e. g., AMAF International Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., D.C.App., 428 A.2d 849, 851 (1981) (two-step analysis required); Stabilisierungs-fonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty., Ltd., 207 U.S.App.D.C. -, 647 F.2d 200 (1981) (separate and distinct analyses made of due process and “transacting any business” issues); Gatewood v. Fiat, S.p.A., 199 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 241, 617 F.2d 820, 823 (1980) (two-step analysis necessary).
. In a recent relevant case, our circuit court stated:
Absent some indication that the agreement was signed or negotiated in the District of Columbia, the fact that one party is a resident of the forum state is an insufficient basis for asserting jurisdiction over the other. [ Willis v. Willis, 655 F.2d 1333 at 1338 (D.C. Cir.1981).]
The four-judge opinion states: “According to the agreement, appellant was to work primarily in the District of Columbia with some consultation and possibly some court appearances in Florida.” Ante, at 990. There was no such “agreement”; plaintiffs decision to perform much of his work in the District of Columbia was entirely his own.
. We have held that telephone calls, letters, and a precontractual interview in the forum state by a nonresident defendant fall short of meeting due process requirements. Basil, Inc. v. Guardino, D.C.App., 424 A.2d 70 (1980). See also Willis v. Willis, supra note 7 (making telephone calls to the District provides insufficient affiliating circumstances to empower District court to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendant).
.The language thus quoted in the Environmental Research opinion was written in the landmark Hanson v. Denckia opinion, supra, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239. That decision was issued in 1958; no Supreme Court opinion since then has in any way eroded its rationale. Indeed, the Supreme Court twice recently has reaffirmed. Hanson v. Denckia. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra note 6; Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 93-94, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1697-1698, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). See also Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 329, 100 S.Ct. 571, 578, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980).
. Those decisions have not struck trial judges — including the one in this case — as obtuse. In Textile Museum v. F. Eberstadt & Co., 440 F.Supp. 30 (D.D.C.1977), one District Court judge rejected long-arm jurisdiction which had been asserted under § 13-423(a)(l). In doing so, he cited and succinctly characterized Hnson v. Denckla and Environmental Research as follows:
See Hanson v. Denckla, supra, 357 U.S. at 253 [78 S.Ct. at 1239] (unilateral activity of persons claiming relationship with nonresident defendant insufficient basis for jurisdiction); Environmental Research Intl., Inc., supra, at 812 (plaintiff may not rely on its District activities to establish jurisdiction over defendant). [Id., at 33.]
Soon thereafter, another District Court judge rejected a claim of jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(1), and stated in part:
The recent discussion of § 423(a)(1) by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Environmental Research International v. Lockwood Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (1976), is persuasive and controlling in the view of this Court. [Realty World Corp. v. Real Estate World Services, Inc., 105 D.Wash.L.Rep. 2121, 2125 (D.D.C.1977).]