Rosenberg on Gang of Four Legal fees: “This is a private matter.”
That’s the quote SAG’s President gave Jonathan Handel, after last night’s lightly attended New York Informational Meeting on TV-Theatrical. At the meeting, Handel writes, Alan Rosenberg is said to have told a member that the lawyers he, Anne-Marie Johnson, Kent McCord and Dianne “Sleepy” Ladd are using to sue SAG and any non-Membership First directors are working for free. SAG’s legal fees fighting the frivolous lawsuit are estimated to be well into six figures.
Here’s a snippet from Handel, who says he spoke to someone who attended the session:
… the most interesting thing the source told me is that after the meeting the source spoke individually with Alan Rosenberg and asked whether he would attempt to have SAG reimburse him for his legal fees incurred in the lawsuit he, Johnson, Diane Ladd and Kent McCord files against SAG itself, a suit that has received denials in both the trial and appellate courts but nonetheless continues at both levels.
What’s interesting Rosenberg’s response, as reported by the source: “I don’t have any legal fees. It’s pro bono.†This is a problem—if true, it would explain in part why Rosenberg and his co-plaintiffs continue the futile and disruptive suit against SAG, which is burning up the union’s money at a that the guild has been left with a $6 million deficit by MF. It’s also a small benefit, in that the plaintiffs will have no legal fees to extract from SAG if they were to recover control of the national board.
I emailed Rosenberg requesting comment on the source’s report and his assistant replied that his response was as follows: “This is a private matter and I don’t want to speak about it publiclyâ€. “I have no further commentâ€.
Also, Handel’s post confirms that Membership First supporters attempted to disrupt the New York meeting:
A source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, tells me that the MF folks (perhaps 15-20 people) were rowdy, booing people and apparently having their cell phones call en masse to disrupt the meeting.
Â
these people are like a dose of the clap. it’s a gift that keeps on giving
Pro bono? Not a chance.
VG
If it is pro bono that makes it worse. It means that they go on and on while we members are stuck with the cost! They screw around and keep the damn thing alive but SAG lawyers has to defend all this nonsense. Ya Rosenberg Cult, what a great example of unionism.
Marisa
Marisa, I can virtually guarantee that this is not pro bono. At least not if you ask the lawyers. It may be that the four plaintiffs intend to stiff the law firm on their bills — that happens a lot — but there’s simply no way a large law firm with significant overhead would take this kind of matter on a pro bono basis.
Although I have to say that the quality of work rendered by this firm — at least as reflected in the court papers that have been made available on the net for review — is not worth paying much for.
This lawsuit had one, and only one, effect: It delayed the resumed negotiations between SAG and the AMPTP, which had been set to start on February 3, 2009, to the latter part of February. Other than that it has done nothing but create distraction and run up legal fees on the SAG side. (And I am disappointed in the job that SAG’s law firm has done — or more accurately, not done — in dealing with this litigation. This case should be gone by now.)
VG
VG,
Let me substitute one latin phrase for another. Instead of “pro bono,” think “quid pro quo.”
The Gang tells their lawyers that “when” they regain control, they’ll work for the union at high hourly rates. This case becomes a “loss leader” in order to snag a long term client relationship. It’s risky, but somehow I suspect the lawyers were led to believe that some positive settlement was attainable because the opposition were known appeasers and accommodationists.
Once the suit is finally resolved, who do I contact for the movie rights? I’m thinking “My Nephew Leon”!
Isn’t the fact that they can keep making SAG pay for something they don’t have to pay for causing sag to lose money. Isn’t that cause for consideration for censure? Or conduct harmful to the union? There is a term for bring law suits just to be a bother, what is it?
We know that several Membership First quislings and high-profile members read the posts on this site. SAGWatch bugs them to no end–it’s a moderate voice in the wilderness and MF does not like uncensored free-speech that disagrees with their jackboot leadership.
So, cell phones going off in a town hall meeting is productive?
Who the HELL are you people!?
Where did you come from?
HOW do you sleep with yourself at night, in the dark, all alone?
You’re an embarrassment to the American labor movement. Rank amateurs playing at being labor leaders.
PLEASE GO AWAY.
“Nuisance” is the word you’re looking for.
SAG bylaws actually state that bringing suit against the Guild without first exhausting internal remedies is “conduct unbecoming”. Since they were in court the next day after the “written assent”, on its face it is very difficult to see how they could have exhausted internal remedies. For instance, the legal brief that was filed in court in support of the suit –was that presented to the Guild in advance to allow them to consider its merits and respond?
Kathy…
Frivilous Lawsuits. In NY it has it’s own consequence and you can be slapped (when you sue someone as a result of them suing you) on the grounds that your original suit was “frivilous”
And it certainly seems like it’s frivilous since it’s lost on each leg of appeal. Is it actionable re: SAG? In the US everyone has the right to sue anyone they choose. These guys are just suing for the sake of suing and it is disgusting.
SAG lawyers who are defending each and every thing the Rosenberg Clan does has cost the Guild an estimated $110,000 was the last figure I heard.
Disgusting
GEO…thanks i just saw your post. I thought the word was a frivilous lawsuit (my lawyer used that phrase once about a client who was being threatened by someone with a possible lawsuit. He wrote them and said that if they took this nonsense further, he would go to court and slap them with a “frivilous lawsuit” and quoted the law chapter and verse.)
But if the bylaws have a clause re: nusance lawsuits that is great. SAG should protect itself against the Scott Wilson’s and Rosenberg Clans of the world who continue to sue SAG even though the suit has no merit.
1. “Exhaustion of administrative remedies” – This is a principle that applies when a union (or any organization) has written internal procedures for handling grievances. It doesn’t apply when the grievance is something that normally wouldn’t be subject to internal review and appeal. A decision of the SAG National Board has no established internal administrative remedy, so the Gang of Four cannot be held to this standard.
In addition, a party is relieved of having to seek internal remedies first by the concept of “futility.” If you can show that any further time and energy spent in pursuit of internal remedies would be useless because the organization shows no likelihood of treating the grievances seriously, the court will not make you go through the motions and allow you immediate access to the courts.
Years ago, a number of claims brought in court against AFTRA H&R were initially defeated because the Funds argued that the complainants had failed to exhaust internal appeals. A year later, the court reinstated the claims after determining that there was no effective internal appeals procedure in place to handle the claims and that requiring the plaintiffs to wait until the Funds had one was “futile.”
2. “Frivolous lawsuit” – A frivolous lawsuit is one without a colorable claim of fact or law. The language of the SAG constitution, like most organizational constitutions, is vague enough to permit conflicting interpretations of important provisions, including the one regarding written assent. Any argument that the Gang of Four brought a frivolous suit was thrown out the window when the National Board subsequently ratified the assent by voting at the next meeting to fire Allen and replace the negotiating committee with the task force. In essence, the ratification acknowledged that there was a legitimate legal question, no matter how inapplicable to the actual facts, underlying the filed complaint.
A court reviewing a claim that the Go4′s suit was frivolous would simply have to ask SAG, “If the suit was frivolous, why did you feel it necessary to ratify the assent?” There’s no way to hold both positions simultaneously and still be coherent. That’s never been a problem for MF, but the courts have a higher standard of logic.
My money’s on “quid pro quo.” That’s how AR got his attorneys to cover his backside when he – at his first meeting as SAG president – fired Hessinger. He then brought into that meeting the two attorneys who ‘reviewed’ Hessinger’s contract (and where, exactly, did they get a copy of it? That’s considered an ‘in-house’ document).
At any rate, those attorneys have remained as employees at SAG since then … quid, meet quo …
V.
Apparently some places they are called “nuisance” and others “frivolous” (sayeth Google).
Re “futility”, Alan as president can call a previously-unscheduled Board meeting and set the agenda. He could have done so and presented the board with a brief discussing the infirmities of their written assent, motions to correct them, and the likely future consequences of a failure to act (i.e. substantial legal costs to the Guild). And he could have done all that in pretty quick time. He didn’t bother trying. He’s the president, and chairman of the board. Of *course* he had some possiblity of remedy. Being a member of a slight minority is not enough to say no one would have changed their mind about *anything* until it actually happens.
And there is, of course, the perspective that states the assent motion was itself a constitutional “remedy.”
It came as a direct result of an unconstitutional, 28+ hour long marathon national board meeting … said meeting having been orchestrated and driven by the very president bringing the specious lawsuit.
V.
and said “remedy” was later voted on a 2nd time by the National Board in a meeting, where more voted than on the written assent. Thereby, the Board remedied and issues on the original remedy.
There really needs to be something in the constitution with some teeth that prevents all this suing nonsense. It’s just stupid to spend our money like this. If there is a clause, SAG should use it even if it risks alienation of luny cult members
Marisa