Doris Roberts, who played Ray Romano’s mother for nine seasons on the CBS comedy “Everybody Loves Raymond,” was ready to negotiate a contract for final season in 2003.

Her agent, Scott Harris of Innovative Artists, had advised her to let attorney James Hornstein, who at that time worked for law firm Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP, negotiate for her jointly with co-stars Patricia Heaton and Peter Boyle. Hornstein had been represented by Harris and Innovative in the past.

After months of haggling, which included “sickouts” by the actors, a deal was struck. But Roberts has since learned that she will receive less than the others from a part of the pact she had expected to benefit them equally, so she has sued Harris and Innovative, claiming they had cost her more than $2 million by keeping her in the dark about their relationship. Under a provision of the Screen Actors Guild agreement with the TV producers, an arbitrator will hear her case against Harris and Innovative in the fall. Greenberg Glusker and the actress reached a settlement, precluding a suit.

It is an increasingly common case in Hollywood in which relationships that were once seen as “connections” are characterized as conflicts of interest.

Entertainment clients are increasingly bringing suits against managers, agents and lawyers, and charging that the attorneys are representing other actors, studios or management companies to their detriment.

“It may even be a burgeoning industry,” said Jim Holmes of Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP. Attorneys cite several reasons for the increase, including:

– The significantly greater volume and complexity of contracts now that wireless and Internet technology has increased the number of distribution platforms;

– Consolidation among the studios and largest media companies, whose synergistic goals foster “crossover” talent deals within their own conglomerates;

– The faster pace with which deals are made in the era of cell phones, Blackberrys and email;

– The increase in the number of independent media and production companies, which makes clients less fearful of being “blackballed” by a studio should they bring litigation.

“Very few shows make it to begin with,” said Holmes, “and the talent is more willing to say, ‘It was my management company that did it,’ or ‘There was something wrong with the attorney doing the negotiations.’

“As long as the client isn’t thinking of going adverse to the studio, there’s almost an attitude of ‘Why not? Let’s sue.'”

Today’s multimillion-dollar deals dwarf pacts from years past and heighten the stakes for clients, managers and attorneys.

“I think people have a tendency to get close to that ethical edge when big dollars are involved,” said Richard L. Charnley, a chair of the entertainment department at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley P.C. “But you have to take the time, look down the line and be very pragmatic in a conflicts setting.” It’s tricky territory, of course, because those same relationships can be seen as positive, and likely to result in a better deal.

Contract negotiations, particularly for talent, are a strategic game and everyone’s getting better at it, according to Greg Keating, a legal ethics professor at USC Law School.

“There’s a perception that entertainment is fraught with conflicts, but everyone’s behaving more strategically and that may be what’s flushing out these conflicts. People are talking more about this.”

Some parties, however, aren’t talking at all, at the moment. Greenberg Glusker is prohibited from commenting on the Roberts case, as part of the settlement it reached with the 79-year-old actress. Innovative declined comment for this story and Roberts was traveling and unavailable. Loeb & Loeb LLP, which is facing litigation from documentary film company Camera Planet, also declined to be interviewed for this story.

Both sides now?


“What you want to avoid is representing both sides,” said Dan Black of Greenberg Traurig LLP. “We will elect to rep one side, and if a person that has been our client on previous matters is on the other side on this matter, he or she will need to seek different representation.”

Black said his firm runs a computer check on potential clients to see if the international firm has ever represented parties in conflict with that person, and the information is available in minutes. But it’s not always that simple.

“Databases only show names,” Charnley said. “They don’t take the next step, which is sitting down and thinking through complicated conflicts issues that are involved.”

Charnley added that sometimes these deals are done within two days with parties spread across the country if not the world and to get all of them waivers to sign is a tall order.

“The amount of time available to make a decision has been significantly reduced due to the advancement of technology, so where once a business executive or lawyer may have had to make 10 important decisions in a day, now that person may have to make as many as 35,” Charnley said. “We are not hard-wired to make decisions that quickly and because we have to make them that quickly. There’s going to be an erosion of the quality of the decisions that are getting made.”