Dose of litigation: manager contends 'strong medicine' star Rose Blasi owes commissions ...

IMAGINE being hired by someone to provide a service, and you do exactly what your hirer asks you to do. Then instead of paying you, your hirer goes to the California Labor Commission alleging that you do not deserve the money. Now imagine the Labor Commission ruling that because you did exactly what you were hired to do, you have lost your rights to collect your paycheck.

It may sound unthinkable, but since the January 1, 1979 enactment of the California Talent Agencies Act, that exact scenario has compromised personal managers time and time again.

Here's what happens: an actor, writer, musician or the like wants to improve their career plateau. They hire a personal manager, with the expressed objective to improve both the quantity and quality of their job opportunities. It costs nothing up front; the manager only receives commissions if there is new income. However, instead of paying commissions once the objective is realized, whether it's a huge recording deal or getting a role on a successful series, the artist initiates a complaint to the California Labor Commission. The offense, one the Commission usually confirms, is that in doing what they were asked to do, the manager somehow morphed into an unlicensed talent agent, a violation of the TAA. Here's why that's an unfair determination: In show business, the artist is both the chairman of the board and the product, both Lee Iaccoca and Chrysler. Managers serve as the chief executive officer, supervising and strategizing with the agent(s), attorney, accountant and publicist. The entertainment attorney is the vice president of business affairs, publicists the vice president of public relations, business managers the vice president of finance, and agents serve as the vice-presidents of sales.

Occupation and responsibility

But not every artist has a full coterie of representatives. It is the manager's responsibility to fill those gaps, whether is it helping with publicity, reviewing a contract or helping the agentless client get a job. Just like in other small businesses where the CEO who on occasion empties the trash isn't the firm's garbage man, a manager helping get auditions when needed has not morphed into an agent.

This conclusion confuses "occupation" and "responsibility": doing something commonly considered the responsibility of another profession does not make you a practitioner of that profession. California Courts have recognized that personal managers "attend to the artist's finances ... serves as the artist's confidant and alter ego" and even "frequently lends money to the neophyte artist." Yet even though accountants, therapists, and bankers require sophisticated licensing requirements, there has never been accusations that managers must have FDIC accreditation to offer financial assistance or be a CPA to "attend to the artist's finances" or that they are unlicensed attorneys when they arrange "transactions on behalf of the artist."

No chief executive officer can abandon the sales responsibilities of their organizations, whether the business is widgets or a guitarist with magical digits. It is a mistake to penalize personal managers unless they abandon their procurement responsibilities: Managers cannot be forced to choose between breaching their fiduciary duty and becoming vulnerable to losing their commissions.

There may be change coming: In choosing to review the case of Marathon Entertainment v. Rosa Blasi, California's Supreme Court will determine whether the current applicability of the TAA on personal managers is fair.

Among Marathon's contentions: When the Legislature created the TAA, it first drafted and then deleted statutes demanding managers be licensed. And like with any contract, once the Legislature considers and then rejects putting a group of people into a specific set of statutes, no court has the right to later infuse them into those statutes.

Making managers comply with the rules and regulations of another profession is also opposite to the Calilornia Constitution, which states, "Every Act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title." Personal managers are not mentioned in either the title or body of the Talent Agencies Act.

Hopefully California's High Court will change a system that has been broke for a generation. After all, the 13th amendment's premise, "All men must be paid for their labor" does not include the addendum, "unless you are a personal manager living or working in the State of California."

TWO VIEWS

These two opinion articles refer to Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Rosa Blasi, a pending state Supreme Court case. Rick Siegel of Marathon contends that he is owed commissions; Blasi's attorney Michael Plonsker claims that the contract in question had been voided. The case is significant because it raises questions over laws pertaining to talent agents and managers.

Rick Siegel is president of Marathon Entertainment Inc., a Los Angeles talent management company.