Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Royalties/Contingency-Fee Agreements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified several questions to the New York Court of Appeals in a contingency-fee dispute between former Lynyrd Skynyrd guitarist Ed King and attorney Lawrence Fox. King v. Fox, 04-0815. King signed a retainer agreement with Fox in the 1970s in an effort to receive royalties from his work with Skynyrd. The retainer agreement stated:
“Our fee for services in this matter will be a contingency fee, based upon any money recovered from the defendants. Our fee for representing you will be 1/3 of the recovery, whether by way of settlement, trial, judgment or other method. You will be responsible for any out of pocket expenses incurred for your benefit.”
Fox obtained a settlement for King with MCA, Skynyrd's record label. King later sued Fox contesting Fox's right to receive a share of both King's past and future royalties. In the last ruling in the case, a Manhattan federal district court granted summary judgment for Fox in 2004, finding that King ratified the retainer agreement and that laches barred King's claim. The lower court also ruled against King on his unconscionability claim.
Noting in its opinion that “it is debatable whether there was a meeting of the minds at the time of the agreement's signing as to the 'prize sought,'” the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals:
- “Is it possible for a client to ratify an attorney's fee agreement during a period of continuous representation?
- Is it possible for a client to ratify an attorney's fee agreement during a period of continuous representation if attorney misconduct has occurred during that period?
- If so, can ratification occur before the attorney has committed the misconduct?
- Is it possible for a client to ratify an unconscionable attorney's fee agreement?”
Royalties/Contingency-Fee Agreements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified several questions to the
“Our fee for services in this matter will be a contingency fee, based upon any money recovered from the defendants. Our fee for representing you will be 1/3 of the recovery, whether by way of settlement, trial, judgment or other method. You will be responsible for any out of pocket expenses incurred for your benefit.”
Fox obtained a settlement for King with MCA, Skynyrd's record label. King later sued Fox contesting Fox's right to receive a share of both King's past and future royalties. In the last ruling in the case, a Manhattan federal district court granted summary judgment for Fox in 2004, finding that King ratified the retainer agreement and that laches barred King's claim. The lower court also ruled against King on his unconscionability claim.
Noting in its opinion that “it is debatable whether there was a meeting of the minds at the time of the agreement's signing as to the 'prize sought,'” the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the
- “Is it possible for a client to ratify an attorney's fee agreement during a period of continuous representation?
- Is it possible for a client to ratify an attorney's fee agreement during a period of continuous representation if attorney misconduct has occurred during that period?
- If so, can ratification occur before the attorney has committed the misconduct?
- Is it possible for a client to ratify an unconscionable attorney's fee agreement?”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.