Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Entertainment Client Can't Recoup Costs of Winning Appeal over Fee Dispute with Lavely & Singer Law Firm
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided that law client Jeffrey Cooper's successful appeal of an arbitrator's revised legal fee award to the law firm Lavely & Singer ' in a dispute over the firm's unsuccessful representation of Cooper in a dispute with a production company ' didn't justify an award to Cooper for the costs of his appeal. Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp., B261936. Cooper had accused the firm of professional negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. An arbitrator overseeing the attorney/client dispute ruled for the firm on the allegations, denied it legal fees for representing itself in the arbitration with Cooper, but later revised the ruling to award Lavely & Singer $225,677 in fees. Last year, the court of appeal reversed the arbitrator's fee award. Cooper then sought the costs of his appeal, pointing to his earlier Lavely & Singer retainer agreement, which allowed “the prevailing party” in “'any ' controversy' between the [client and law firm] to recover fees incurred in connection with the 'controversy.'” California Civil Code '1717(a) states: “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract ' shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.” But the court of appeal noted, in an unpublished opinion: “Although the [arbitrator's] Final Award [later revised] decided that [fee] issue against L & S, it provided that L & S was the prevailing party in the arbitration, as did the revised final award, which authorized a fee award. Accordingly, within the arbitration, L & S's fee motion initiated no discrete 'action on a contract' in which Cooper was the prevailing party.”
Entertainment Client Can't Recoup Costs of Winning Appeal over Fee Dispute with Lavely & Singer Law Firm
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
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?