A band manager hears a song on the internet or catches your act at a local club and approaches you promising recording contracts and headline performances in front of 15000 screaming fans… it’s a seductive offer and you consider giving a percentage of your earnings to this person. Is it an offer you can’t refuse or an offer you should run from?

I have reviewed countless management contracts and, interestingly, they all vary quite a bit. I am more than happy to review any management contract before you sign and I will give my fair unbiased opinion. In the meantime, here are a few important things to look for.

Obtain the manager’s resume and credentials

This may seem obvious, but many artists fail to ask enough questions about a potential manager’s background. Has he ever worked with a successful artist, or are you the guinea pig? Does he or she actually have effective contacts in the music industry? Is he or she familiar with your kind of music – this is essential because a highly successful hip-hop manager might be unable to do anything for a rock band if he has the wrong contacts and is unfamiliar with your genre. Is he or she making promises that can be kept?

Never, ever, ever, sign power of attorney

There is absolutely no reason to sign over power of attorney to a band manager. None. I recently read a contract offer for a very talented artist and the manager was requesting power of attorney over all contracts and bank accounts affiliated with the artist and her music. I can’t say it enough – there is no reason to agree to this. Do not allow a manager to take over your career and make binding decisions with which you may disagree.

Let’s Talk Money

This is probably the area which creates the most need for negotiation. What percentage is fair? Should he or she only take a percentage of work that they produce? Gross v. net? and so on…

Here are some considerations. The average percentage is 10-20% for a manager. At the higher end, the manager should have a great resume and be able to open very lucrative doors. Anything over 20%, is in my opinion excessive. It is also very helpful if you sign a contract in which the manager only receives a percentage profit on work that he or she creates. In other words, if the manager books a paying show, then he or she is entitled to profit. If you contact a venue directly or license your song to a video game entirely on your won without the effort of the manager, why should he or she profit?

Some managers will not take a percentage and instead will work for a fee. These agreements may be appropriate if you have every confidence that the manager can keep his promises. Otherwise, you may lose money on the deal.

In addition, always look to sign a contract where the manager takes a percentage of the net profits and not gross profits. The music industry can have a lot of overhead costs… equipment, road crews, merchandise manufacturing costs, recording time in the studio, etc. The manager should share in these costs by taking only a percentage of the net profits and not the gross profits.

So is it a Good Idea?

Absolutely, if it is the right manager with the right contract. There are hundreds of thousands of bands and artists who sound much like you across the Country and across the Globe. A good manager can open doors that would be otherwise impenetrable and might just be the key to success. That said, a manager should never be a hindrance or a step backward and that is why you have to do your homework.

If you are considering hiring a band manager, or have already been contacted by one, contact my office right away so that we can review the proposed agreement. A few hours with a lawyer by your side could save thousands of dollars in the future and might prevent a horrible contract.

Continue Reading

Picture several cars stopped at a red light when a driver, not paying attention, rear-ends the car stopped at the back of the line. That driver is hit so hard that he or she is forced into the car immediately in front of him or her causing a three car accident. On occasion, the initial impact is so severe that the chain reaction can reach four cars!

A potential client called the office this morning facing this scenario. He was stopped at a red light behind another car when he was rear-ended. The impact of the rear-end accident forced him into the car directly in front of him operated by a woman. The client was taken to the emergency room for observation and suffered whiplash injuries, namely cervical strain/sprain and a lumbar strain. He asked if I would represent him for his personal injuries, and then he asked if the woman he struck could sue him?

He was concerned that because it was his car that caused the damage to the front vehicle that he would be held responsible. This is absolutely untrue! If the driver in the middle of a rear-end pile up was safely stopped before the initial impact and was then forced into the car in front of him, he is not responsible for any damages caused. The driver at the back of the chain reaction is responsible for all damages.

This is a very different scenario than if you rear-end a vehicle and then are struck from behind by another driver not paying attention. In that case you will be responsible (at least 50%) for the damages (both property and injury) to the persons in the front vehicle. The person at the end of the chain may be partially responsible for the damage to the front vehicle and will be responsible for the rear-end damage to your vehicle (as well as 50% of any injury damages). You will be responsible for the damage to the front end of your vehicle.

These types of car crashes can be difficult to sort out and it is important to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney if you are in the middle of a multi-car pile-up. Only the person at the front of the line has nothing to worry about!

Continue Reading

I speak with musicians and artists almost every day to try and help them along the path to rock and pop stardom, but the fact is that many up and coming artists are struggling to make it and, therefore, can not afford legal fees of an entertainment lawyer. I always keep my fees as low as possible to help people gain access to the legal help they need, but it is not always enough.

If you are a band, singer, or musician, on the brink of stardom, you should know that I can be retained on a contingency fee basis. You may be familiar with contingency fees in personal injury cases. The attorney will not paid or compensated until you are compensated. In the case of personal injury the compensation comes from a settlement or jury verdict, in the case of entertainment law, the compensation comes from advances on recording agreements, or other contractual payments. The percentage is lower than that typically used in personal injury cases. Under such an agreement, I will review all contracts, negotiate favorable terms, use my contacts to help further your career, and ensure that your best interest is protected.

If you have been offered a recording contract, production agreement, licensing agreement, or any other contract in the music industry, it is imperative that you have an entertainment attorney review any document before you sign. Just this morning I spent an hour speaking to a client who asked me to review a recording contract only to find that there were a number of problems and unjust provisions. No matter how badly you want to make it big, you absolutely can not blindly sign a contract. The music industry is extremely complex and record labels and producers are not looking out for your best interest. An experienced entertainment lawyer, such as myself, familiar with the complex language of the music industry is your best option.

A dog bite can range from a minor scratch to a fatal mauling. No matter how serious the severity of the dog bite, any animal attack can be a traumatic experience. The law surrounding dog bites and negligence may be unclear and some may wonder how you can be compensated for an animal attack.

Rhode Island State Law is quite clear on the matter. If a dog bite occurs outside of a pet’s enclosure (i.e. outside the home in a public park or on a sidewalk) then the owner of the pet is strictly liable for any and all injury that the dog causes. Strict liability means that the circumstances as to why the attack occurred are irrelevant – the owner is always responsible!

If the attack occurred inside the home (the pet’s enclosure) then the homeowner is not necessarily liable. This may be a surprise to many people who think that a homeowner is obligated to control his pet at all times. However, if the pet is inside his enclosure and the owner has no reason to believe that the pet is a danger to anyone (i.e. the dog is not a pit bull, akita, or other dangerous breed, and the dog has never attacked anyone in the past) then the owner is not liable for the attack. If, however, the dog is a dangerous breed, or if the dog has bitten a victim in the past, then the homeowner is on notice that the dog is dangerous and is responsible for any injury suffered no matter where it occurs.

Massachusetts, also has very favorable laws for victims of dog bites. The owner of a dog is strictly liable for any attack on a person unless that person was teasing, tormenting, or otherwise harassing the animal.

In Massachusetts, the law also says that a child under 7 can not be responsible for tormenting or teasing the dog. Therefore, in Mass, a homeowner is always responsible for injuries inflicted on a child under 7. Tragically, children are the most common victims of dog bites. This may be attributed to the fact that children are on the same height level as dogs and because children do not yet understand the danger that some dogs may present.

The vast majority of homeowner’s policies will cover dog bite attacks and pay the customary personal injury debts including: medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

The amount paid to a victim for pain and suffering also includes compensation for scarring which is, unfortunately, a common result of a dog bite. The value of a scar depends on many variables, including but not limited to, the location on the body and the severity and length of the scar.

Continue Reading

I had a new client come in yesterday morning who was severely injured in a motorcycle accident. He very rarely rode the motorcycle and did not maintain insurance on the bike or have a current registration. He was concerned that because his bike was unregistered and uninsured that he would be found at fault for the accident.

I thought that this is a question or concern that other people might have and decided to write this post. The short answer is that the insurance and registration status of a vehicle has nothing to do with a liability determination. Liability is a complex determination made by asking whose negligence ultimately caused this accident. In other words, which driver failed to act with due care and caused the accident. This determination does not consider the insurance or registration of a vehicle or motorcycle.

My client was 100% not at fault for this accident. That said, I certainly do not recommend operating a car or motorcycle without proper insurance and registration. For one, you will be subject to fines from the police. Even though you are not at fault for the accident, it is against the law to operate an uninsured and unregistered vehicle, and you will have to pay the consequences.

Also, if my client maintained an adequate insurance policy he might have had underinsured motorist available to him. Underinsured motorist is much like uninsured motorist. In the case of underinsured motorist, if the at fault driver does not have enough insurance coverage to compensate for the serious injury, you can then turn to your own insurance policy to cover the gap. That is why it is imperative not to cut corners with your insurance policy because you never know when you will need it.

Continue Reading

Margaret Marshall, who delivered the opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, has announced that she will be stepping down from her post on the Court. Unfortunately, Justice Marshall’s husband has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and she will be stepping down to care for him.

Justice Marshall will be well remembered for the Goodridge decision which was a State and National landmark decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Marshall said that the State may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” In so ruling she also stated that “The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference.” Constitutionally it was determined that there is no rational basis to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

Regardless, of political or moral bent, It was a courageous and important decision. Advocates for same sex rights hoped that this State decision would lead to a National right to marry for same sex couples. Unfortunately, the decision seems to have created as much tension as it has freedoms.

The Rhode Island Court System saw a decline in both civil and criminal cases in 2009 as compared to 2008. The number of civil jury verdicts was down as was the number of Superior Court felony filings. To no surprise, the Worker’s Compensation Court also saw a heavy decrease in activity. Given that 10-15% of the State is unemployed, one would expect to see a drop in work-related injuries.

Unfortunately, there was an increase in domestic abuse filings. This may be attributed to our poor economy and high level of unemployment. The current atmosphere creates high level of family tension and drives some people to drink heavily which can lead to an increase in domestic abuse. The Supreme Court also saw an increase in the number of appeals filed.

Some numbers from the annual report are available here.

Several hundred RI women were implanted with non FDA approved IUD devices (a form of birth control) at some of the biggest OB-GYN practices in the State. It is a story that I have written about in the past and which seems to continue to grow. An up to date list of doctors who used non FDA approved IUD devices is available from the Rhode Island Department of Health.

Today I had the pleasure and good fortune to be interviewed by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly as they prepare an article on this very subject. We discussed whether the actions of these doctors amounts to medical malpractice and what options the victims may have in seeking compensation. Any medical malpractice case requires both medical negligence and damages. While the facts surrounding this story suggest medical negligence, the extent of the injuries sustained has yet to be determined. I believe that this is a medical battery and a procedure performed outside of the scope of the implied consent. Therefore, there is some value in the case, but it may not be a lot of money.

What these doctors need to fear is a patient coming forward who became pregnant while on the non approved IUD device. In that medical malpractice claim for unwanted pregnancy, the doctor or facility is potentially liable for the entire cost of raising that child to the age of majority which as we all know is hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As I continue to tell the female victims who call my office: 1) contact the RI Department of Health; 2) contact a primary care physician or other trustworthy OB-GYN; 3) seek alternate forms of birth control and do not rely on the IUD device because it may fail.

Continue Reading

The Study which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that many doctors will not report their colleagues who are clearly unfit to practice medicine. Doctors are able to report to work drunk or while addicted to drugs with little fear of retribution. Even outright incompetence is rarely reported by other doctors.

In the study, 17% of the doctors surveyed had DIRECT knowledge of an incompetent or drug addicted physician in their workplace. Of those doctors, one third failed to report their knowledge to superiors. Among the reasons given for failing to act: belief that someone else will take care of it; that nothing will be done; retribution for being a whistle blower. One fifth of all doctors having direct knowledge of drug or alcohol abuse is a very large number. The number of physicians who may suspect that their colleague is on drugs or incompetent will be much higher.

The American Medical Association holds that it is an ethical requirement for any doctor with direct knowledge of mental impairment or incompetence of another doctor to report such knowledge. Unfortunately, too many incompetent doctors continue to work every day.

Despite extensive training and preparation, doctors do make mistakes every day leading to medical malpractice.

Continue Reading

For those who have joined the ranks of tort reformers under the misguided belief that it will somehow save our deplorable health care system, or for those who chastise plaintiff attorneys for no particular political agenda, I am here to expose hypocrisy wherever it occurs.

Plaintiff attorneys are the last defense against giant corporations which place profit over safety. Plaintiff attorneys are the reason the Ford Pinto is off the road, that asbestos is no longer used in construction, that unsafe prescription medications are recalled, and that cigarettes now come with warning labels. Yet some still cling to the stereotype of the plaintiff attorney as ambulance chaser. One such misguided soul is John Stossel. This Fox broadcaster who believes that Enron symbolizes all that is right with the corporate system (no, that is not a typo!) is a staunch critic of plaintiff attorneys suggesting that we are both parasites and lawyers.

But, as it turns out, and I want to thank thepoptort.com for breaking the story, Mr. Stossel once sued a pro wrestler for pain and sufferring. Apparently, Mr. Stossel is not a fan of the wrestling industry either, and called one of the athletes a fake. This led to a skirmish and a lawsuit from the man who believes that plaintiff attorneys are parasites. For his suffering, Mr. Stossel received $200,000.00! It’s convenient that the system was there for him in his time of need, but what a tragedy should plaintiff attorneys attempt to protect the rights and well being of any one else!