Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Devin McRae Quoted in Several Moore v. Kirkman, Walking Dead Articles
Category: News | Thursday, February 16th, 2012 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Quoted in Several Moore v. Kirkman, Walking Dead Articles
Devin McRae appeared in several articles regarding Tony Moore’s lawsuit against Robert Kirkman, an executive producer of The Walking Dead TV series.
Here are some excerpts:
“Robert Kirkman, the famed comic book writer who helped create AMC’s hit zombie series The Walking Dead, has been sued by a childhood friend and collaborator who claims he is entitled to as much as half the proceeds from the lucrative franchise…Michael Anthony (“Tony”) Moore, a fellow comic book artist, filed suit Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court. In the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by THR, Moore says he was duped into assigning his interest in the material over to Kirkman, who has since gone on to fame and fortune. Moore, on the other hand, has received very little compensation and has not be able to access profit statements from properties including Walking Dead, he says…The suit, filed by Devin McRae, William Wright and Mary Gordon at LA’s Early Sullivan Wright Gizer McRae firm, alleges causes of action for promissory fraud, breach of written contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, money had an received and accounting.”
Source: Hollywood Reporter Esq.
“Nine months before he was sued by his former illustrator for payments over their “Walking Dead” comic book and the TV show it spawned, Robert Kirkman made a joke he probably regrets now. Asked during a podcast how a comic book writer should find an artist to draw his or her stories, Kirkman dryly replied, “Trickery and deceit.” On Thursday, Kirkman’s original “Walking Dead” artist, Tony Moore, accused him of exactly that. Moore alleges in a lawsuit that Kirkman, a childhood friend with whom he collaborated on several comics, tricked him into surrendering his rights to them in 2005 in exchange for payments that never came. Kirkman calls the allegations “ridiculous.” But his “trickery and deceit” joke, lighthearted and ironic as it may have been, is almost certain to come under scrutiny if the case goes to trial. Moore’s attorney said Friday he was unaware of the podcast comments until TheWrap asked about them. “As the saying goes, in all humor there’s truth,” said the attorney, Devin McRae. “And also, I think from my client’s perspective, Mr. Kirkman is clearly speaking from experience.”
Source: Reuters
“Comic book artist Tony Moore has sued Robert Kirkman, an executive producer of The Walking Dead TV series, claiming he was tricked into signing a 2005 agreement and has been denied an accounting to determine his share of the show’s profits. Moore, whose full name is Michael Anthony Moore, claimed in a suit filed on Feb. 9 that Kirkman and his company, Kirkman LLC, have failed to provide books and records that would clarify how much he should be paidunder the agreement. “He’s received some checks, but that’s all he gets are checks,” said Moore’s attorney, Devin McRae, a partner at Los Angeles-based Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “He’s asked for accounting statements and access tothe supporting documentation that is supposed to be provided under the agreement, and he’s getting stonewalled.”
Source: National Law Journal
“Comic book writer Robert Kirkman, who helped create the AMC television hit “The Walking Dead,” was sued Thursday by a former collaborator who claims he was duped into signing away his rights to the comic book series that inspired the show. In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Michael Anthony Moore alleges that in 2005, Kirkman and his agents devised a fraudulent scheme to get him to agree to assign his copyrights on works he co-authored to Kirkman’s company…Devin McRae of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer McRae LLP, who represents Moore, told Law360 that it was “ironic” for the other side to claim that Moore had been paid his due, saying Kirkman’s representatives had previously claimed that the documents needed to verify whether the royalties were being paid properly were unavailable. ‘If they are so certain that [Moore] has been paid everything he is owed, we expect that in discovery they will give us everything that our auditor has specified is necessary to confirm that,’ McRae said.”
Source: Law360
Four Early Sullivan Lawyers Named Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Category: News | Sunday, February 12th, 2012 | Comments Off on Four Early Sullivan Lawyers Named Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars
We are proud to announce that Scott Gizer, Diane Luczon, Devin McRae and Bryan Sullivan have been named 2012 Rising Stars by Southern California Super Lawyers.
Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars is a highly selective list, with no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in the state chosen.
Source: Southern California Super Lawyers
Watching Out for Fraud
Category: News | Friday, February 3rd, 2012 | Comments Off on Watching Out for Fraud
Be sure you’re doing the proper due diligence on behalf of your clients in a distressed-property sale.
BY ERIC P. EARLY , SCOTT E. GIZER
No doubt, you’ve read reports about intricate fraud schemes designed to bilk distressed property owners out of equity and steal homes. To help your clients avoid scams, pay close attention to your fiduciary duties—and think beyond basic due diligence.
In an example we’ve seen repeatedly, unsuspecting sellers are told that a limited-liability company—actually a shell corporation created by the fraudsters—is the buyer of their property. Short-sale approval letters are fabricated using a template from a prior bank short-sale approval and forwarded to the sellers in order to induce them to execute a grant deed in favor of the “buyer.” Meanwhile, innocent buyers bidding on the property are told the short sale is approved, and those buyers transfer their purchase monies into escrow. The escrow officer, in on the fraud, then transfers the money to his or her coconspirators and provides a false HUD-1 showing that the funds were used to pay off the lender as part of the short sale. The sellers, assuming their loans are paid off, stop making payments, causing the lender to begin foreclosure proceedings. Before long, the innocent buyers learn they’ve been defrauded.
What if you are the lone unknowing practitioner in a crooked deal like this? Say, for example, you’re representing the innocent buyers. With a little extra care, it’s possible that you can expose the fraud and prevent it from occurring. Freddie Mac is encouraging practitioners to help prevent fraud by blowing the whistle on questionable transactions; the agency requires all parties to the transaction to sign an affidavit affirming a truly arms-length deal. If you weren’t aware of wrongdoing, you won’t be held responsible for others’ actions. But if your gut tells you that something is off, then do some research. Follow up with escrow or title officers to ensure they’ve verified the validity of the short-sale agreement. Don’t hesitate to ask for copies of communications with the lender regarding the short sale, and make sure you’re satisfied that the lender has authorized the short sale to proceed along the lines that it is, in fact, proceeding. Asking tough questions will protect both your clients and you. We know of one case in which a buyer’s agent is being sued for failing to conduct due diligence that would have prevented fraud. Sometimes it can be intimidating to ask extra questions for fear of losing a deal and thus the commission, but is that $10,000 commission really worth becoming embroiled in a lawsuit or blemishing your reputation?
Here are some things to look out for:
• When working with another real estate practitioner for the first time, check the person’s license status with your state’s department of real estate. Never deal with unlicensed agents or unlicensed brokerage companies, and be wary if you encounter agents who are unwilling to meet in person.
• Be sure to pay extra attention if one of the real estate practitioners is a party to the deal, is using a shell company, or mentions “on the side,” “outside of escrow” or “after closing.”
• Make sure early in the real estate transaction that all the required state and federal disclosures have been made, and be suspicious if other parties claim to represent federal or state agencies or programs.
Also, beware of the “forensic loan audit.” According to the Federal Trade Commission, these can be used to exploit financially strapped home owners. In exchange for an upfront fee, so-called forensic loan auditors, mortgage loan auditors, or foreclosure prevention auditors offer to review a home owner’s mortgage loan documents to determine whether the lender complied with state and federal mortgage lending laws. The “auditors” explain, in many instances without any reasonable basis, that the owner can use the audit report to avoid foreclosure or accelerate the loan modification process.
For your part, if you plan to undertake a short sale on behalf of a buyer or seller, be sure you fully understand how a legitimate transaction should play out. Check with colleagues, industry Web sites, and your state regulatory agency. Remember, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Source: Realtor Magazine
Fox Fraud Suit Against Distributor Gets Qualified OK
Category: News | Thursday, January 19th, 2012 | Comments Off on Fox Fraud Suit Against Distributor Gets Qualified OK
Law360, Los Angeles (January 19, 2012, 6:56 PM ET) — A California federal judge ruled Thursday that 20th Century Fox International Corp. can sue a German stakeholder in an international film distributor that allegedly breached a contract and bilked the studio of at least $3 million, but suggested his decision is ripe for appeal.
U.S. District Judge George H. Wu denied German lawyer Bodo Scriba’s motion to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
The judge said that a Ninth Circuit decision reversing an earlier dismissal of Scriba implied that once Fox had shown some evidence to support a prima facie showing that Scriba is an alter ego of a party within the court’s jurisdiction, the judge should not analyze the reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction.
But Judge Wu criticized the Ninth Circuit’s lack of clarity on the question and suggested that his ruling Thursday was ripe for appeal. This set the stage for yet another round in a nearly four-year battle over jurisdiction in the fight over purported fraud by an international film distributor.
“All of this, of course, could have been resolved if the Ninth Circuit had given this court some measure of guidance on the issue beyond the conclusion that alter ego, ‘if supported by some evidence, would provide a strong argument for the exercise of jurisdiction over Scriba,’” Judge Wu wrote in his ruling Thursday. “[T]his decision is one that the court would seriously consider certifying for appeal.”
Fox sued Scriba and distributor Gemini Film International over alleged fraud related to a film distribution agreement in 2008, claiming GFI and Scriba used shell companies to illegally divert film revenue for Scriba’s personal gain.
The lawsuit stems from an international distribution agreement that dates back to 1999. Fox used GFI from 2000 until 2006 to distribute its movies in Russia and several Eastern European countries, according to the complaint.
Fox claims GFI owes it millions of dollars in unpaid gross film rentals, and has brought claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with a contract, fraudulent conveyance and accounting issues.
Scriba sought to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that he wasn’t involved in the alleged fraud. Instead, Scriba claims GFI Managing Director Michael Schlicht was in charge of the company and oversaw its day-to-day operations. Furthermore, it was Schlicht who authorized loans to other corporate entities that were allegedly used as a means of funneling cash away from Fox, Scriba claims.
But at a hearing in December, Judge Wu noted that Scriba owns a 60 percent share of GFI and a substantial financial stake in Amadeus Publishing and Amadeus Distribution Services, which were allegedly used to carry out the scheme to defraud Fox of millions of dollars.
In his decision Thursday, Judge Wu said that a Ninth Circuit ruling reversing his earlier dismissal of Scriba was unclear, but suggested that it would not be appropriate for him to analyze whether exercising jurisdiction over Scriba is reasonable, an analysis that would lead to a different result.
“Were the reasonableness analysis necessary, and were it to implicate only the conduct of Scriba himself, the court would again reach the conclusion that jurisdiction over Scriba would be unreasonable,” Judge Wu wrote.
At the hearing Thursday, the judge expressed dissatisfaction with that outcome, and suggested that the appeals court should take another look at the issue.
“[T]o my mind, I would think that due process would require the court to look at the context,” Judge Wu said. “Apparently the Ninth Circuit doesn’t think that, or if it does, it’s kept the trial courts clueless. And that’s why the issue is ripe for certification.”
Scriba’s attorney Eric P. Early said Thursday that his client would strongly consider appealing the ruling.
“We don’t think there is any showing of alter ego, and whatever Fox has offered is threadbare at best, and to cause somebody to come in from a foreign country to defend himself here based on such a limited showing, it’s our position that that’s manifestly unreasonable,” Early said. “But of course I respect what the court said, and it appears pretty clear from the court’s ruling and from what [Judge Wu] said today that he thinks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals need to look closer at this issue. I totally agree with that.”
Representatives for Fox did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Fox is represented by Richard L. Stone, Anthony Basich and Poopak Nourafchan of Hogan Lovells.
GFI and Scriba are represented by Eric P. Early and Bryan M. Sullivan of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP.
The case is Twentieth Century Fox International Corp. v. Gemini Film International SAO et al., case number 2:08-cv-01109, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Source: Zach Winnick, Law 360
War Zone Security Guards Claim Breach of Employment Contracts
Category: News | Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 | Comments Off on War Zone Security Guards Claim Breach of Employment Contracts
A U.S. government contractor providing security guards at military bases and other sites in Iraq and Afghanistan has been sued for failing to pay overtime wages and provide meal and rest breaks to its employees.
The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 19, seeks back wages and compensation for missed breaks on behalf of an estimated 300 to 400 armed guards employed in Iraq during the past two years by SOC Inc., which is based in Minden, Nev.
“It was supposed to be six days a week, 12-hour days,” said attorney Scott Gizer, a partner at Los Angeles-based Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, which filed the suit in Clark County, Nev.’s Eighth Judicial District Court. “In reality, they were working closer to 13- or 14-hour days, seven days a week.”
The suit alleges that their time sheets were falsified to show that they worked 12-hour shifts for six days a week, he said.
A call to Michael Littlejohn, general counsel of SOC, was not returned.
The lead plaintiff is Karl Risinger, who worked at SOC as an armed guard at a military base in Iraq from March 8, 2010, to March 8, 2011. When Risinger signed the SOC employment contract under Nevada law, he believed he was going to be paid a $65,000 salary.
“However, when Plaintiff and others similarly situated arrived in Iraq, they were informed that the $65,000 so-called ‘salary’ was, in fact, calculated based upon a $17.36 hourly rate,” the suit says.
The class comprises five subclasses: Those denied overtime wages; those who worked more than eight hours a day without a 30-minute meal period; those who worked more than eight hours a day who didn’t get a rest period; those with unpaid wages and compensation when their employment ended; and those who didn’t receive accurate records of their wages.
Under Nevada law, companies must provide an employee with a 30-minute meal period for each eight hours worked, Gizer said. They also are entitled to a 10-minute rest break for each four hours worked.
“There were set hours for when the mess hall would be open, and our guys would not be able to access that during their shift, so they’d have to, before their shift started, run, eat and then start their 12-hour shift,” he said.
Source: Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal
Fans’ Ideas at Risk
Category: News | Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 | Comments Off on Fans’ Ideas at Risk
Studios’ Interaction With Fans Can Land Them in Hot Water if it Appears They Stole Ideas
LOS ANGELES – In the digital era, relationships between many corporate marketing departments and their customers have become as interactive as a video game. But as companies encourage fan participation – soliciting everything from “friendship” on social network websites to user-developed promotional videos and ideas – lawyers say their corporate clients are becoming more exposed to losing.
Theoretically, a company could be sued if it uses an idea posted on its Facebook wall, emailed to a staff member or submitted in a contest without paying the submitter. And lawyers say a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which found that an implied contract exists if a plaintiff expected to be paid for his or her idea when submitted, has further emboldened potential litigants. Larry Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television Inc., 606 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir., June 3, 2010).
In one such lawsuit, filed last week against Discovery Channel parent company Discovery Communications Inc., a filmmaker claimed she won a pitching contest but was turned down after a formal pitch meeting. She said she was told her idea for a reality television show following the day-to-day operations of a medicinal marijuana dispensary in Southern California was “too edgy” for the network. But a year later, Discovery premiered “Weed Wars,” a similar program, shot on location at an Oakland- based dispensary.
Theoretically, a company could be sued if it uses an idea posted on its Facebook wall, emailed to a staff member or submitted in a contest without paying the submitter.
Kylie Krabbe submitted her idea via email to the Council on International Nontheatrical Events’ “5 on 5 for 5” contest in the spring of 2010. Chosen as a finalist, Krabbe gave a five-minute presentation to five development executives, including Discovery Senior Vice President and CINE President Rita Mullin.
Krabbe’s attorney, Devin A. McRae of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, said the point of the contest was to win the opportunity to pitch an idea for sale to an industry executive.
“The contest would be completely meaningless if CINE or the CINE-selected industry executive could simply decide to use the idea without paying the contest’s winner,” McRae said. “Everyone involved understood that Ms. Krabbe submitted her idea on the condition of payment for its use and not once was it even remotely suggested that CINE or anyone else had the right to just take it, as they did.”
A spokeswoman for Discovery declined to comment on the allegations.
Wendy Revel, executive director of CINE, said the submission process – which asked contestants to send a one-page proposal via email, including a description of the concept, the length, format, intended audience and an estimated budget – was informal and didn’t include information on how contestants might protect their ideas.
“We have reputable people in the industry who are looking at them and hearing their pitches,” Revel said.
Dominique R. Shelton, an intellectual property specialist with Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP who is not involved in the case, said the Montz case re-established so- called industry custom and practice in a way that invited more plaintiffs’ implied contract claims and that companies should beware.
“It used to be that unless the plaintiff clearly conditioned disclosure of an idea on payment, the implied-in-fact contract would not be presumed,” Shelton said. “Now, when a company is operating a promotion or receiving ideas, they’re going to want to bake into the submission agreement language that says they do not want industry custom and practices to be infused into the contract. Making that express rather than arguing about it later is probably a good idea.”
Neither side would discuss whether Krabbe to forego the new practice when she formally pitched the Discovery executives, but that will likely come to light as the litigation proceeds.
Glen L. Kulik, an idea theft specialist with Kulik, Gottesman, Mouton & Siegel LLP who is not involved in the case, said that most contests have no implied contracts.
“In submitting the idea, the writer is doing so to get his or her name and reputation known and to win a contest,” Kulik said, “not to sell the idea to the people running the contest.”
But he added that depends on who is running the contest, the contest rules and the prize. In Krabbe’s case, those details will be critical.
Source: Daily Journal, Erica Phillips
Woman Claims Discovery Swiped ‘Weed Wars’
Category: News | Monday, December 19th, 2011 | Comments Off on Woman Claims Discovery Swiped ‘Weed Wars’
LOS ANGELES (CN) – A woman claims the Discovery Channel “flat-out” stole the idea for its “Weed Wars” show from a pitch she made it in June 2010.
Kylie Krabbe sued Discovery Communications in Superior Court.
Krabbe claims she pitched her idea for a show called “Greener Pastures,” at Discovery’s offices in Maryland, after winning a national contest sponsored by CINE, the Council on International Nontheatrical Events, which was later headed by Discovery executive Rita Mullin.
Krabbe claims that Mullin and other industry executives were on the panel to whom she made her pitch.
“It turns out that this so-called ‘contest’ and ‘award’ was merely an elaborate ruse by Discovery to identify and target the best novel ideas to steal under false pretenses-in direct violation of established California law,” the complaint states. “Discovery ‘passed’ on plaintiff’s pitch, saying the subject matter was ‘too edgy’ for it. Yet, either simultaneously or within days of uttering these pretextual reasons for rejection, Discovery approached another producer to create a show using all of plaintiff’s ideas. ‘Weed Wars’ premiered on the Discovery Channel one year later. Not only is the general concept of ‘Weed Wars’ identical to plaintiff’s ‘Greener Pastures,’ but so are numerous concrete details regarding the plot, themes, characters and sequence of events.”
Krabbe’s attorney Devin McRae told Courthouse News that the case was “a textbook case of idea theft.”
“It’s indisputable that Ms. Krabbe submitted her ideas to Discovery on the condition of payment for their use. Discovery unarguably had access to Ms. Krabbe’s ideas. There are several specific concrete similarities between Ms. Krabbe’s pitch materials and ‘Weed Wars,'” McRae said.
Krabbe claims that before Discovery ripped off her idea, Mullin encouraged her to cast the show and to get a production company attached, so as to protect her interests as an unproven producer. Krabbe followed that advice, “spending considerable time, energy and resources” to cast the show and attach a producer, GOTV, according to the complaint.
Krabbe says she cast Joanna Laforce as the owner of three medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Members of Laforce’s family were also cast to appear in the show, she says.
Krabbe says she pitched the show to Mullin and another executive at Discovery’s Los Angeles office in August 2010. They passed on the show but Mullin introduced Krabbe to another executive at Discovery’s Planet Green Channel, according to the complaint. That executive also rejected the project, citing concerns that the show would turn off advertisers, Krabbe says.
“Discovery simply decided to steal plaintiff’s ideas and had initiated, or soon thereafter did initiate, contact with another producer, Chuck Braverman, to make a show using plaintiff’s ideas, but rather than casting Laforce who was under contract with plaintiff, casting D’Angelo, who was identified in plaintiff’s pitch materials as, in essence, Laforce’s mirror image in Northern California,” according to the complaint.
The complaint cites several ideas in “Weed Wars” that it claims are “unique to ‘Green Pastures,'” including the use of a family-run dispensary, a head of family who is a “visionary and political activist,” and the risk the family faces “because of the illegality, on the federal level, of medicinal marijuana, as well as the possibility every day that the entire business empire could be shut down at a moment’s notice.”
McRae told Courthouse News: “It has been reported that Discovery approached Braverman’s production company with the idea to produce ‘Weed Wars’ at the same time Discovery told Ms. Krabbe that the subject matter of medicinal marijuana was ‘too edgy’ and of no interest to it.”
Krabbe seeks damages for breach of implied-in-fact contract, plus screen credit and royalties. The only defendants are Discovery Communications Inc. and Does 1-20.
Discovery declined to comment.
McRae is a partner in Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae.
Source: Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News
Discovery Sued By Woman Who Claims ‘Weed Wars’ Was Her Idea
Category: News | Friday, December 16th, 2011 | Comments Off on Discovery Sued By Woman Who Claims ‘Weed Wars’ Was Her Idea
Discovery Communications has been sued by a woman who claims the company’s Discovery channel stole the idea for its new medical-marijuana docuseries Weed Wars.
In a detailed lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Kylie Krabbe claims she came up with the idea of creating a reality series based on a medical marijuana dispensary and took it to an organized pitch session in 2010, where she won the right to pitch Discovery executives. Krabbe says she then developed a show to be called Greener Pastures, featuring the proprietor of a pot dispensary in Santa Barbara, and registered the treatment with the WGA before pitching Discovery execs.
According to the suit, Discovery initially expressed interest but ultimately passed on the show, calling it too “edgy” for the network. But Krabbe believes the network had decided to move forward with another producer, Chuck Braverman, who developed what would become Weed Wars, about a dispensary in Oakland, Calif. That show premiered Dec. 1 on Discovery.
Krabbe, repped by Devin McRae at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, wants damages for breach of implied contract.
We’ve reached out to Discovery for comment. The network does not comment on pending litigation.
Source: Matthew Belloni, The Hollywood Reporter
Would-Be Producer to Sue Discovery Channel’s Parent Company, Says ‘Weed Wars’ TV Show Was Her Idea
Category: News | Thursday, December 15th, 2011 | Comments Off on Would-Be Producer to Sue Discovery Channel’s Parent Company, Says ‘Weed Wars’ TV Show Was Her Idea
A lawsuit to be filed today asserts that Weed Wars—a reality show that follows the day-to-day action at a California medicinal marijuana dispensary—was the brainchild of one Kylie Krabbe, who was not paid for it.
But Krabbe “isn’t your normal person off the street who says, ‘Yeah, I came up with the idea,’ ” her lawyer, Devin A. McRae of Los Angeles-based Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae told the Daily Journal (sub. req.) on Wednesday.
According to the complaint McRae announced would be filed today, Krabbe’s idea won a 2010 Council on International Non Theatrical Events “5 on 5 for 5” Pitch Session contest. After that, Krabbe developed the show she titled Greener Pastures; cast the owner of a Santa Barbara marijuana dispensary; registered her treatment with the Writers Guild of America; and pitched it to Discovery, which took a pass.
Discovery soon took Krabbe’s idea to another producer who built Weed Wars around an Oakland, Calif., marijuana dispensary, the complaint states.
Source: Sarah Randag, ABA Journal
Law360 Q&A With Early Sullivan’s Bryan Sullivan
Category: News | Wednesday, September 28th, 2011 | Comments Off on Law360 Q&A With Early Sullivan’s Bryan Sullivan
Law360, New York (September 28, 2011, 5:17 PM ET) — Bryan Sullivan is a founding partner of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP. He has been involved in cases with a wide range of legal issues, with a particular focus on intellectual property, sports law and entertainment law. He represents entertainment and sports industry clients, such as Miley Cyrus and Roadside Attractions. He was also a writer’s apprentice on the television show “JAG” and wrote the English screenplay for the Bollywood hit “Blue.”
Q: What is the most challenging case you have worked on and what made it challenging?
A: As a junior associate, I represented Bangkok-based Bank of Asia against Red Chamber. Bank of Asia sought to collect on a series of bills of exchange that were used to secure payment for shrimp purchased by Red Chamber from a third-party shrimp seller. This was the first case I handled as a lead associate, and the partner thought it was very straightforward — Red Chamber did not pay money owed to Bank of Asia on the bills of exchange. As we learned more about the case, we discovered that Red Chamber appeared to be the victim of an apparent fraud by the third-party shrimp seller, which became a key defense in the case.
The fraud was very difficult to uncover because we did not understand Bank of Asia’s record-keeping, or the true nature of the transaction. Once we realized the case was far more complicated than we first thought, we went through every document in the case, and, in the process, one of Bank of Asia’s employees made a summary of the bill of exchange transactions that became our primary exhibit in our motion for summary judgment. The court granted that motion and awarded over $7 million in damages. As a result of working on this case, I now meet with my clients as early as possible to learn everything about the case and the client’s business. This leads to more effective and efficient representation.
Q: What aspects of your practice area are in need of reform and why?
A: The focus on the billable hour. Associates at big firms are taught to bill every single minute of the day, and their compensation is primarily based on their billable hours. Good associates are not the smartest ones, or those who do the best work; rather, they are the ones who bill the most hours! Sorry, but clients hate it when they are billed a quarter of an hour of time for the drafting of an email they know takes less than two minutes to draft. I have found that not charging a client for very simple and mundane tasks builds incredible goodwill with the client.
Q: What is an important case or issue relevant to your practice area and why?
A: Effects Assocs. Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F. 2d 555, 557 (9th Cir. 1990), which holds that, under 17 U.S.C. § 204, if a copyright holder agrees to transfer ownership to another party, that party must get the copyright holder to sign a piece of paper saying so. This may seem like a simple tenant of law, and most movie studios comply, but many production companies forget to obtain this necessary writing when acquiring copyright rights, thinking that a handshake or understanding is “good enough.” Thus, a production company can invest a substantial amount of work to develop a property, and then lose the property because it did not obtain an enforceable transfer of the rights to the copyright.
Q: Outside your own firm, name an attorney in your field who has impressed you and explain why.
A: Wayne Levine, the general counsel of Lionsgate. I have had the opportunity to work with Wayne on a few Lionsgate matters, and he is incredibly intelligent and savvy. He always clearly defines his goals, and develops strategies to accomplish those goals. Also, he is nice and personable. I thoroughly enjoy working with him.
Q: What is a mistake you made early in your career and what did you learn from it?
A: When I was a mid-level associate, I represented a successful executive suing his former employer for wrongful termination. When we got hit with a series of discovery requests (oppressive discovery, in my opinion), my client wanted to hit back hard by submitting a lot of discovery and third-party document subpoenas on his former employer. I assumed that my client was well versed in litigation and its cost. I was wrong. While the case quickly settled after discovery was submitted, my client was angry when he got a final bill that contained numerous hours of discovery and third-party subpoena drafting.
He said he thought the discovery requests were “just forms,” and that it would take an hour to check the boxes on the form interrogatories, the only set of discovery he knew about. From that point on, I always make it a point to apprise clients of tactical costs (risks) vs. potential outcome (return) when discussing case strategy and tactics. For example, a client might want to depose every potential witness in a case, yet some witnesses have very limited knowledge, and the cost of deposing that witness is not worth the minimal information we might gain.
All Content © 2003-2011, Portfolio Media, Inc.