Richard Daynard, a Northeastern University law professor, contracted to provide tobacco litigation assistance to the Ness law firm in South Carolina. The Ness firm and the Scruggs law firm of Mississippi were plaintiffs' attorneys for tobacco litigation in Mississippi. Over a period of months, Daynard met in South Carolina and Boston, spoke over the phone, and communicated by fax with members of the Ness firm. He also communicated by phone and fax with members of the Scruggs firm. Based on their actions, Daynard believed that the Ness firm and Scruggs firm were agents of each other in directing the Mississippi tobacco litigation. In addition, both firms retained the benefits of his legal advice, which was provided in accordance with a contract he made with the Ness law firm and called for compensation equal to 5 percent of their legal fees. When the firms refused to pay Daynard, he sued in a federal district court in Massachusetts. The court had personal jurisdiction over the Ness firm because of its contacts with Massachusetts, but the Scruggs firm asserted that it had no contacts with Massachusetts. May the contacts of the Ness firm be imputed to the Scruggs firm, giving the court jurisdiction over the Scruggs firm?