... While attorney claims Talent Agency Act protects artists from exploitation.

THE Court of Appeals' decision in Marathon Entertainment v. Rosa Blasi challenges 40 years of precedent. Before this decision, the California courts and the Labor Commission uniformly held that a contract under which an unlicensed manager procures or attempts to procure just one employment opportunity for an artist in violation of the Talent Agencies Act is void and the manager is barred from recovering commissions for any activities under the contract.

The purpose for this bright line, as repeatedly stated by the courts and the Labor Commission, was that the object of the Talent Agencies Act was to deter unlicensed persons from acting as talent agents and to regulate such activity for the protection of artists.

Now, the court has seemingly opened the door for managers who have admittedly violated the act to recover commissions on employment that was not procured by the manager - here, the court surmises, possibly in connection with "Strong Medicine," the Lifetime series in which Blasi starred.

After the second season of "Strong Medicine," Blasi fired Rick Siegel and his company Marathon Entertainment, both unlicensed, because Siegel was not acting in her best interests. When Siegel sued Blasi to recover commissions in connection with "Strong Medicine," she asserted as one of her defenses the Talent Agencies Act, which was passed by the California Legislature for the very purpose of protecting artists like Blasi.

She alleged that Siegel had committed over 100 acts of wrongful procurement. Both the Labor Commission and the Superior Court ruled in her favor. Now, based on its interpretation of the law, the Court of Appeals has sent the matter back to the trial court to determine if Siegel wrongfully procured in connection with "Strong Medicine" and whether the main purpose of Siegel's agreement with Blasi was illegal.

While the outcome of this case in the Supreme Court may have a dramatic impact on artists, personal managers and talent agencies, it should have no impact on Blasi since the evidence is overwhelming that Marathon repeatedly violated the Talent Agencies Act including, as expressly ruled upon by the Labor Commission, in connection with "Strong Medicine."

Excerpts from the opening state Supreme Court brief of defendants in the case of Marathon v. Blasi:

"The intent of the Legislature, which is the primary consideration in determining the issues before the court, is to deter violations of the TAA using 'the most effective weapon': the voiding ... of an illegal talent agency contract in its entirety, without consideration of the doctrine of severance.

"The need for a definitive decision by this court on this subject is no better evidenced than by Marathon's Aug. 21, 2006 letter to this court in which it states that, notwithstanding the strict licensure requirement of the TAA, personal managers 'must act unlawfully' to serve their artist clients by procuring employment without a talent agency license.

"Marathon goes so far as to pronounce that procurement without a license does not violate "any of the TAA's 'important regulations.'

"This flouting of the law, which is echoed in numerous other letters submitted to this court by other personal managers, cries out for even greater deterrence, not a watering down of what the Legislature intended as 'the most effective weapon.'

"Indisputably, the TAA is a remedial statute intended for the protection of artists. Equally indisputable is the fact that the opinion all but actively encourages unlicensed talent agents to violate the TAA, since the financial consequences - the only possible deterrent under the TAA - of such a violation have been drastically reduced... At the same time, the opinion discourages artists harmed by unscrupulous talent agents from seeking relief for fear they will by unable to satisfy the heightened "main purpose/taint" standard.

"The result goes against the intent of the Legislature in enacting the TAA, it is directly contrary to the consistent interpretation of the TAA by the state agency charged with enforcing that statue and it is fundamentally at odds with over a century of jurisprudence upholding the voiding of illegal contracts in their entirety to advance the deterrent purpose of a licensing statute intended to protect the public."

Michael J. Plonsker is an attorney at Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP in Los Angeles and co-wrote the brief with Daniel A. Fiore.