Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Block to Perpetual Attorney Fees

By Michael I. Rudell and Neil J. Rosini
September 27, 2007
Entertainment law firms in California commonly charge the talent they represent on a percentage basis, rather than an hourly one. The typical arrangement requires the client to pay 5% of gross income derived from contracts entered into during the course of the representation. Earlier this year, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles addressed the enforceability of this fee structure in the context of an acrimonious dispute between two entertainment firms. The case involved a prominent attorney and allied partners who left one firm to create a new one, taking a large number of clients with them. The two firms then brought numerous claims against each other, invoking a long list of legal theories.

The principal issue in the case, and the focus of this article, is whether clients who had departed for the new firm had a continuing obligation to pay that 5% fee to the old firm as a matter of contract law. (Additional ethical questions that may be raised by such arrangements are beyond the scope of this article.) The case was subsequently settled, and the court's unpublished decision did not advance beyond the 'tentative' stage. Nevertheless, the rationale of this decision is of interest to any entertainment lawyer who has adopted, or even considered, this alternative to billing by the clock.

The Superior Court held that under the facts presented, contractual principles (and to a lesser degree, ethical rules) blocked the older firm from collecting because the arrangement was unenforceable. Hirsch Wallerstein Hayum Matlof & Fishman LLP v. Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austin Mandelbaum & Morris (L.A. Sup. Ct. BC 320128). Would the result be the same in New York? As discussed further below, a 56-year-old Court of Appeals decision seems to be the only reported appellate case with comparable facts, and a pure attorney-client relationship was not presented.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.