'Dora' Litigator Gets Contingency Fees, but Less of Client's Future Earnings

Soon after the settlement was signed, the Sanchezes fired Balestriere and replaced him with Manhattan solo Susan Chana Lask. Armed with her new counsel, Caitlin Sanchez wrote a letter to the court urging Judge Griesa to undo Balestriere's work on the case. “Balestriere assured me he would take my case to trial,” the 15-year-old Sanchez wrote. “Instead [he] violated the trust I had and victimized me. ' [He] started to force a settlement that I did not want and that was unfair to me.”

Judge Griesa first refused to undo the settlement in a 2010 opinion. Then at a hearing last November, he again affirmed the deal but admitted that he had been “remiss” not to ask for further briefing from Balestriere explaining how he arrived at his $193,000 fee. Griesa concluded in June 2012 that the fee passed muster, though he lowered Balestriere's cut of Sanchez's future earnings from 30% to 15%.

After the ruling, Balestriere said: “The decision reconfirms what I already knew ' that [our firm] got a good result against a tough adversary. Obviously I never forced [the Sanchezes] into a settlement. I don't see how I could.” He thinks his proposed 30% cut of Sanchez's residual earnings was reasonable and supported by case law, but that he respects the judge's ruling, adding: “I think it's unfortunate that the case has continued as long as it has.”

Lask no longer represents the Sanchezes, but said she and her former clients parted ways amicably. The Sanchezes current lawyers at Manhattan's Harwood Feffer and New York's Moritt Hock & Hamroff had already appealed Griesa's refusal to vacate the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Harwood Feffer name partner Robert Harwood declined to comment on whether the firm plans to appeal Judge Griesa's recent ruling on Balestriere's attorney fees.

In 2007, the television network Nickelodeon handpicked Caitlin Sanchez, then 12-years-old, to voice the wildly popular cartoon character “Dora the Explorer.” But Sanchez's stint playing a cheery preschooler wound up introducing her into a very adult world of litigation. The partnership soured three years later and Sanchez's parents sued the network, alleging that it forced her into an exploitative labor contract. The focus of the case soon shifted, however, to a dispute between the Sanchezes and their lawyer, John Balestriere of Manhattan's Balestriere Fariello, over allegations that Balestriere forced them into a quick settlement that was nearly as exploitative as the original contract.

District Judge Thomas Griesa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected those claims, approving Balestriere's $193,000 contingency fee and future payments for his role in negotiating the $510,000 settlement in 2010. Sanchez v. MTV Networks, 10 Civ. 7854. The ruling marks the third rejection of the plaintiffs' efforts to undo the deal ' a campaign that's churned through three sets of lawyers. It also caps a two-year-old case that featured some unlikely moments ' such as Viacom's lawyers at Shearman & Sterling describing the ins-and-outs of contemporary toddler television entertainment to an 82-year-old judge.

The Sanchezes, a Cuban-American family in Englewood, NJ, hired Balestriere in 2010 to bring a lawsuit claiming that Nickelodeon, which is owned by Viacom, cheated them out of millions. The family claimed the network gave them a 22-minute deadline to sign a convoluted contract that provided Caitlin just “a few hundred thousand dollars” for her voice-acting work and related promotional activity, according to court transcripts. Balestriere soon reached a deal with Viacom and its lawyers at Shearman & Sterling that got the Sanchezes an additional $450,000 tied to Caitlin's residual earnings, plus $60,000 for past appearance fees. The deal also gives the Sanchez family rights in perpetuity to have its own auditor review Viacom's calculations of residuals and merchandising.

Soon after the settlement was signed, the Sanchezes fired Balestriere and replaced him with Manhattan solo Susan Chana Lask. Armed with her new counsel, Caitlin Sanchez wrote a letter to the court urging Judge Griesa to undo Balestriere's work on the case. “Balestriere assured me he would take my case to trial,” the 15-year-old Sanchez wrote. “Instead [he] violated the trust I had and victimized me. ' [He] started to force a settlement that I did not want and that was unfair to me.”

Judge Griesa first refused to undo the settlement in a 2010 opinion. Then at a hearing last November, he again affirmed the deal but admitted that he had been “remiss” not to ask for further briefing from Balestriere explaining how he arrived at his $193,000 fee. Griesa concluded in June 2012 that the fee passed muster, though he lowered Balestriere's cut of Sanchez's future earnings from 30% to 15%.

After the ruling, Balestriere said: “The decision reconfirms what I already knew ' that [our firm] got a good result against a tough adversary. Obviously I never forced [the Sanchezes] into a settlement. I don't see how I could.” He thinks his proposed 30% cut of Sanchez's residual earnings was reasonable and supported by case law, but that he respects the judge's ruling, adding: “I think it's unfortunate that the case has continued as long as it has.”

Lask no longer represents the Sanchezes, but said she and her former clients parted ways amicably. The Sanchezes current lawyers at Manhattan's Harwood Feffer and New York's Moritt Hock & Hamroff had already appealed Griesa's refusal to vacate the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Harwood Feffer name partner Robert Harwood declined to comment on whether the firm plans to appeal Judge Griesa's recent ruling on Balestriere's attorney fees.