Unread postby AdeleAgain » Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:33 am
And of course once one person has the courage to speak up - so do others. This isn't proof of course but I do hope these tweets come to wider attention:
Another person saying they worked with this Rocky-guy and he's not a pleasant sort of chap!
What I find particularly interesting is how the words got twisted. So in the complaint Johnny supposedly said things along the lines of who-do-you-think-you-are-to-tell-me ....... and I can fully believe he said 'who do you think you are' with a few expletives thrown in, but who would possibly say he wan't justified in doing so?
And also (once again) this has come out in a legal process - she has given her statement, not sold stuff to the media.
Unread postby humiliatedgrape » Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:37 pm
Johnny Depp Scores Court Win Against Former Lawyer as Judge Rejects Unwritten Legal Contract
AUGUST 28, 2018 10:15AM PT
By Gene Maddaus
Johnny Depp scored a significant legal victory on Tuesday, as an L.A. Superior Court judge ruled that his contract with his lawyer should have been in writing.
Depp is seeking to recoup tens of millions of dollars in legal fees paid out to Jake Bloom over 18 years. The ruling could also have profound effects on legal dealings in Hollywood, where agreements are often based on a handshake rather than a written contract. Bloom was paid based on a percentage of the actor’s earnings. The relationship fell apart in 2017, as Depp was also fighting a legal war with the Management Group, his former management company.
Depp sued Bloom in October, arguing that the fee arrangement was effectively done on a contingency basis, which under California law must be in writing. Bloom countersued, arguing that Depp had failed to fully pay his legal bills and had violated the unwritten agreement. Bloom’s attorneys argued that the agreement was not a contingency arrangement, but Judge Terry Green disagreed.
“There’s not a special rule for entertainment people,” Green said Tuesday. “Why isn’t it in writing? Why not have something that memorializes the agreement so we don’t end up in court fighting like this?”
Bloom’s attorney, Ray Cardozo, argued that his fee arrangement is quite common, and that it differs significantly from the typical contingency agreement.
“With a contingency fee, you are speculating on an uncertain outcome,” Cardozo said. In Depp’s case, he argued the agreement was closer to a law firm doing work for a tech startup in exchange for equity rather than cash. “You’re not speculating on an outcome… Your piece of Depp’s income can fluctuate.”
Green repeatedly stated that his relatives work in the entertainment business, so he has no particular hostility to it. But, he argued, the business should be bound by the same rules as everybody else.
“I grew up in a showbiz family,” the judge said. “I am aware that showbiz people think they live in a different universe, but they don’t. They’re not a different universe.”
Green argued that the ups and downs of Depp’s career underscore the speculative nature of a fee arrangement based on his income.
“I don’t follow showbiz,” he said. “I rarely go to movies. I know who the plaintiff is. I can’t tell you a whole lot about him, except he’s had ups and downs in his career. Who would have known, 18 years ago, how high the highs are and how low the lows.”
Depp’s attorney, Fredrick Levin, was relatively quiet during the argument, except to echo the judge’s remarks.
“I think your honor has it exactly right,” Levin said. “There’s no adequate explanation why this contract wasn’t in writing.”
The attorneys for both sides declined to comment outside court. The case is set for a trial on May 6, and Bloom’s attorneys may seek to appeal the judge’s ruling.
Last edited by Joni on Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Complete article embedded
I think we are all somewhat screwy, every single one of us.
Unread postby AdeleAgain » Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:47 pm
Today has been a good one for Johnny! Nice headline.
AUGUST 28, 2018 10:08am PT
by Ashley Cullins
Johnny Depp Scores Big Win in Lawsuit Against Ex-Lawyer Jake Bloom
The court found that under California law the oral contract between the actor and his former lawyer is invalid.
In a decision that could have sweeping impacts across Hollywood, an L.A. judge has found Johnny Depp's oral contract with his former talent lawyer Jake Bloom is invalid.
Agreeing to a contingency fee deal on a handshake isn't uncommon in the entertainment business, but now talent lawyers may need to revisit any agreements that weren't memorialized in writing.
Depp sued Bloom in October, asserting, among other claims, that his former attorney collected more than $30 million in contingent fees without a proper contract. Bloom countersued in December, asking the court for a declaration that their 1999 oral agreement is valid and claiming Depp breached their deal by failing to pay for legal services.
In March, Depp's legal team asked the court to rule that his deal with Bloom is invalid because California law requires written contracts for contingency fee agreements. Bloom's attorneys argued that Depp "ratified" their fee arrangement by continuing to accept legal services after alleging in his recently-settled legal fight with his ex-business managers that The Management Group "failed to obtain and maintain written agreements with critical service providers" including Bloom.
Depp wants all of his fees refunded, but Bloom can still make a claim of quantum meruit, asking the court to rule that he was paid a reasonable fee for his work.
Last edited by Joni on Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unread postby AdeleAgain » Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:22 am
Can I ask a question that I've wanted to ask someone for ages relating to 2016 PRO/divorce hearings. Who is Kevin Murphy? I think that's his name - his phone logs were on Johnny's evidence list. I'm wondering where he fitted in and what he might have been able to say.
Ade wrote:Can I ask a question that I've wanted to ask someone for ages relating to 2016 PRO/divorce hearings. Who is Kevin Murphy? I think that's his name - his phone logs were on Johnny's evidence list. I'm wondering where he fitted in and what he might have been able to say.
I remember googling "Johnny Depp Kevin Murphy" at the time. He was apparently Johnny's assistant in Australia and one of the assistants Amber blamed the dog thing on. I don't know what he may have said. Perhaps information about Amber lying about the dogs to prove she has a history of lying. Or.. whatever happened down there when he was injured. I don't remember exactly there was something about a photo of someone's hair. Was it Murphy's? Maybe to say she attacked him and pulled hair out?
Unread postby AdeleAgain » Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:57 am
Thanks so much. Hmmm his phone logs though, wonder what they would show. I really hope more gets revealed. I'd love to know what the other witnesses knew, wasn't her publicist on Johnny's list of witnesses? Intriguing.
I am so happy that it is not my job to figure out, what is rightfully Bloom's and what is Johnny's here!
Sep 6, 2018, 05:31pm
The Next Round of Johnny Depp v. Jake Bloom
Hollywood & Entertainment
Here is what we know so far from recent case of Johnny Depp v. Jake Bloom, where Johnny Depp appears to have won one battle by the court holding that a talent lawyer’s standard fee of 5% of the client’s income is a “contingent fee” under the relevant statute:
*Contingent fees to lawyers have to be agreed to in a writing that is signed by both the lawyer and the client and that complies with a number of provisions set out in California Business & Professions Code section 6147(a) (a “Valid Agreement”).
*If the agreement for a contingent fee is not a Valid Agreement, the agreement is voidable at the option of the client pursuant to California Business & Professions Code section 6147(b).
*If the client voids a contingent fee agreement for lack of a Valid Agreement, the lawyer is entitled to be paid a “reasonable fee” pursuant to California Business & Professions Code section 6147(b).
*If the client has already paid a contingent fee without a Valid Agreement, the client is entitled to recover the excess of the contingent fee over a reasonable fee from the lawyer.
*The judge in the Johnny Depp v. Jake Bloom case held that the standard 5% fee that talent lawyers charge is a contingent fee under the statute, notwithstanding that the statute requires the contingent fee agreement to deal with costs relating to “the claim,” and the reference to “the claim” suggests that the statute was intended to apply to contingent fees based on a percentage of the recovery on a claim, like a lawsuit.
But more importantly, here are some of the things we don’t know:
*What is the statute of limitations on Johnny Depp’s claim for a refund? It is not clear what the relevant statute of limitations is, but it seems unlikely that he can go back eighteen years.
*What is the statute of limitations on Jake Bloom’s claim to be paid a reasonable fee? Presumably it is the same as the time limit on Johnny Depp’s claim, or at least there should be a right of offset.
*What is a “reasonable fee” for Jake Bloom? Is it based on a deemed hourly rate, and if so, what is it? Instead of hourly, can it be based on what he charges other clients or on what other talent lawyer’s charge, which by the way is the same 5%?
*If Jake Bloom has to pay anything to Johnny Depp, is he stuck trying to deduct it for tax purposes in the year of payment (which may result in not all of it being deductible), or can he amend prior returns and get a refund of prior taxes paid? There is a special tax code section that permits the second approach if amounts that are refunded were initially received under a “claim of right.”
*Is Johnny Depp taxed on any payment he receives? What if he could not deduct all of the prior payments for any reason? Can he claim it as a return of capital?
*Can the client retroactively ratify the contingent fee arrangement by signing an agreement later? Does the client need to be advised by independent counsel? If the client does later ratify the fee arrangement, the agreement needs to comply with California Business & Professions Code 6147(a). One of those requirements, which is often overlooked, is that the writing needs to state that the fee is not set by law and is negotiable.
So stay tuned for round two in this fight, since it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
Thanks for that link, meeps. I think I bailed on trying to understand this mess a lot sooner than you!
Mr. Moore’s article is painfully simplistic, especially since he seems most concerned about the need to establish a framework for Mr. Bloom’s “reasonable” compensation. When are these writers going to take a moment to remind the reader of those other nefarious, annoying and tangled complaints in Johnny’s suit, frequently dismissed as “among other claims”:
“. . . professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment . . .”
I have to smirk at the eager insinuations of some that Mr. Bloom may actually be due additional monies for his hard work and long hours working for Johnny all those years. YEAH, it must have taken many, many hours indeed to draw up quicksand rescue plans, e.g, “hard money loans”, that then had to be couched in language carefully designed to appear palatable.
If anyone would like to refresh (exhaust) themselves further, one of our Zoners, Paul Kemp, posted a fairly comprehensive article found in People magazine back in October of 2017:
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot