Solis v. Blancarte

California Labor Commissioner
TAC-27089 (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under California's Talent Agencies Act (TAA), negotiating an employment contract on behalf of an artist constitutes procuring employment, which requires a talent agent license. An agreement to perform such services without a license, even by a licensed attorney, is illegal, void, and unenforceable.

Facts:

Mario Solis is a sports reporter and news anchor for a television station in Los Angeles.
James E. Blancarte is a licensed attorney who had previously provided legal services to Solis.
Television station KNBC approached Solis to express interest in hiring him.
Following KNBC's interest, Solis asked Blancarte to represent him in negotiating the terms of employment with the station.
On July 8, 2002, Solis and Blancarte entered into a written agreement providing that Blancarte would receive a 5% commission on all money Solis earned from the KNBC contract.
Blancarte, who did not possess a talent agency license, proceeded to negotiate an initial employment agreement and two subsequent renewals for Solis with KNBC.
Solis paid commissions to Blancarte from August 2002 through the end of 2007, but then stopped making payments.
At no point during his representation of Solis did Blancarte hold a license as a talent agent under the TAA.

Procedural Posture:

On December 30, 2011, James E. Blancarte filed a civil lawsuit against Mario Solis in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, a state trial court, to recover unpaid commissions.
Solis filed an answer to the complaint, which included an affirmative defense asserting that the contract was illegal under the Talent Agencies Act (TAA).
On April 30, 2012, Solis filed a Petition to Determine Controversy with the California Labor Commissioner, seeking a ruling that the engagement contract was void and unenforceable under the TAA.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a licensed attorney who negotiates an employment contract for an artist on a commission basis violate California's Talent Agencies Act by acting as an unlicensed talent agent, thereby rendering the representation agreement void and unenforceable?

Opinions:

Majority - William A. Reich, Special Hearing Officer

Yes. A licensed attorney who negotiates an employment contract for an artist on a commission basis violates the Talent Agencies Act (TAA). The TAA regulates conduct, not job titles, and defines a 'talent agency' functionally as anyone who procures employment for an 'artist.' The act of negotiating an employment agreement falls squarely within the definition of 'procuring employment.' The TAA contains no exemption for attorneys, and when the central purpose of a contract is illegal procurement, the entire contract is void and unenforceable. Therefore, Blancarte acted as an unlicensed talent agent, and the engagement contract is illegal and void, barring him from recovering any commissions.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the broad, functional scope of California's Talent Agencies Act, making it clear that the TAA regulates conduct, not professional titles. It serves as a significant precedent clarifying that there is no 'attorney exemption' for activities that constitute 'procuring employment' for an artist. The ruling solidifies the severe penalty for such violations—the complete voiding of the contract—preventing the unlicensed agent from recovering any fees for their work, even for services already rendered. This puts attorneys and personal managers on strict notice that if their services include negotiating employment deals for artists, they must either obtain a talent agent license or work in conjunction with a licensed agent to ensure their fee agreements are enforceable.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Solis v. Blancarte (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature