Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Calif. Court of Appeal Considers How to Draw Line Between Business Consulting and Legal Services In Entertainment Industry 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 Though issued "unpublished," the Britton decision offers insight and guidance on the business consultant/legal counsel dichotomy debate.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 Burnett, 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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?