It has been said that one has truly arrived as a small-firm superstar when he appears in this column. Who said that? Someone, I am sure. While I simply cannot confer that honor to all small-firm attorneys, there is a second place honor: a feature in the New York Times. Martin Singer — the “guard dog” to Hollywood royalty, and founder of the small firm Lavely & Singer — is one of these superstars.
Singer’s client list includes some major starpower: Charlie Sheen, Jeremy Piven (remember when Ari Gold had mercury poisoning?), Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Harry Reid, Quentin Tarantino, and (gasp) Sylvester Stallone. Through these relationships, Singer has developed a niche that anyone would want to scratch: “shielding stars and their adjuncts from annoyance.”
While Singer’s firm specializes in all things entertainment, “[n]othing gets Mr. Singer going like a whiff of defamation.” And when he gets going, he does what has made him famous: “kill, or at least maim, unflattering stories that have yet to surface.” Some attorneys do not believe the hype about Singer’s ability to kill said stories (e.g., noted First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus, who described Singer as a “blowhard”). But Hollywood publicists are convinced that Singer is the man to call when a story breaks about their clients’ love child or sex tape.
Do not be fooled by the glitz and glamour associated with representing celebrities. After the jump, see how Lavely & Singer is like many other successful small firms….
Don Imus has reached a settlement with CBS over his multimillion-dollar contract after his being fired from his morning talk show and is in negotiations with WABC radio to resume his broadcasting career there, CBS and a person familiar with the negotiations said today.
Mr. Imus and CBS Radio “have mutually agreed to settle claims that each had against the other regarding the Imus radio program on CBS,” that network and Martin Garbus, a lawyer for Mr. Imus, said in a joint statement today.
* Justice Kennedy profile: “The Sphinx of Sacramento.” [Slate]
* NBA refs give a new meaning to DWB. [SI]
* Imus plans lawsuit based on contractual language that acknowledged irreverence. [MSNBC]
* Trans fat lawsuit against KFC deep fried, disposed of properly. [CNN]
* Indian judge who issued Gere warrant transferred. “Routine”? [MSNBC]
A draft copy of Don Imus’s complaint indicates that the fired radio show host will be suing CBS, his former employer, for $120 million. Details here.
That’s a hefty chunk of change. It’s three times the total value of his $40 million contract.
But look at it another way. A hundred and twenty mil is still less than the cost of two pairs of pants. If you’re an exalted Administrative Law Judge, for the District of Columbia. Exclusive: Imus Says CBS got what it bargained for [ABC News] Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Don Imus (scroll down)
Okay, not exactly. But Martin Garbus, the legendary litigator now representing former CBS radio host Don Imus, is coming out swinging.
Yesterday Garbus announced that Imus would sue CBS Radio for the unpaid portion of Imus’s $40 million contract. He said to expect the lawsuit by the end of next week.
Garbus cited a clause in Imus’s contract acknowledging that his show was “unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial.” This language may be part of the contract clause we discussed back in this post.
This morning’s news includes another argument we’ll probably see in the eventual lawsuit. From the AP:
CBS Radio and MSNBC had delay buttons, but didn’t use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team, lawyer Martin Garbus said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“That means CBS and MSNBC both knew the language that was going out, and both knew the language complied with (Imus’) contract. … It was consistent with many of the things he had done,” Garbus said.
Interesting. It sounds like CBS may have a real fight on its hands. And if the matter goes to a jury trial, there may be some sympathy for Imus. Here are the results of our recent ATL poll:
This appears to be the legal theory to be advanced by controversial former radio host Don Imus, through his “ferocious” litigator, the renowned Martin Garbus. Reports Fortune:
Imus has hired one of the nation’s premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted….
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of – making off-color jokes. The source described it as a “dog-has-one-bite clause.” A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
We’re curious: What do ATL readers think about the Imus firing?
(The Pew Research Center also conducted a poll to gauge public attitudes towards Don Imus’s firing. It will be interesting to see how their poll results compare to the ATL poll results.)
P.S. We love Wikipedia. Check out their entry for HoHos:
HoHos are cylindrical, frosted, cream-filled cakes that are made by the Hostess company and are distributed in the United States and Egypt. The Interstate Bakeries Corporation owns the Hostess company. HoHos are similar to Yodels, which are made by Drake’s (also a brand of Interstate Bakeries Corporation), and Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls.
Don Imus has hired a prominent litigator, prompting speculation that the dismissed DJ may be plotting legal action against his former employers (CBS and MSNBC).
The lawyer is Davis & Gilbert partner Martin Garbus, named by Time Magazine as “legendary, one of the best trial lawyers in the country.” According to BusinessWeek:
A brief sentence on Garbus’ personal blog, late Friday afternoon, noted that Garbus “represents Don Imus in a dispute with CBS”—a sentence that was later removed from the blog.
A ferocious litigator who has received numerous media citations as one of America’s leading trial lawyers, Garbus has represented clients as diverse as the comic Lenny Bruce, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Nancy Reagan, and pioneering rap group Public Enemy.
Even cooler than the thought of Nancy Reagan and Public Enemy eyeing each other from opposite sides of the Davis & Gilbert lobby: Garbus’ bio notes that he “won what is arguably the most important due process case of the 20th century, Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254).”
He also blogs at The Huffington Post.
Sounds like Imus is in good hands.
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.