Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CA Court of Appeal Offers Insight on Business Consulting vs. Legal Services In Entertainment Case
The question has been frequently debated in the legal community: What is the difference between an attorney providing business consulting services or acting as legal counsel? The California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion on the concern in the context of the entertainment industry. Britton v. Riggs, B303446. Though issued "unpublished," the Britton decision offers insight and guidance on the business consultant/legal counsel dichotomy debate.
The plaintiff, California bar member Layne Britton, had worked in non-legal executive positions at CBS, as vice-president of business affairs at NBC Entertainment and executive vice-president of business operations for the now-defunct United Paramount Network. However, during his career he didn't work at a law-firm, as a solo attorney or as a litigation attorney.
In 1998, Conrad Riggs, principal of the production company, Cloudbreak, joined with producer Mark Burnett to create reality TV shows that included the highly successful Survivor, which began airing on CBS in 2000. That year, Riggs asked Britton for advice on CBS's position on what percentage Burnett should receive from the TV show's advertising income. Later, after Burnett and CBS began negotiations over Survivor season renewals, the Irell & Manella firm served as counsel to Burnett and offered legal advice to Riggs, who explained that Britton nevertheless "offered to help [Riggs] with the renegotiation instead of [Riggs] hiring … another lawyer." When the Burnett and Riggs and CBS were unable to finalize the deal, the parties proceeded to arbitration, with Britton continuing to offer advice to Riggs. Britton also work with Burnett and Riggs to create and pitch other TV show projects.
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.