Welcome to the month of May. 

Graduation season is here, and Jeff and I would like to send out big congratulations to law clerks Katherine West, Will Dugoni and Ben Shaw.  Enjoy the ceremony, the party and the short break…and then get ready to start studying for the Bar Exam.

A couple notes on this month’s podcast, which can be found below, and my conversation with Rebecca Brian the COO at NextSpace.  Our legal discussion had to do with business entities, but we failed to mention the newest form of business entity the Benefit Corporation. Why is this important to note?  Well, NextSpace just became a certified B-Corp, which is a Benefit Corporation that meets the B-Corp standards. Benefit Corporations are different from standard Corporations in that they are formed for a purpose that may or may not place the interests of the shareholders first.  For more info on Benefit Corporations and B-Corps check out our Benefit Corporation FAQ, and a hearty congrats to NextSpace on becoming a certified B-Corp.

During the conversation we make reference to the movie “The Lost Boys (1986)” which was filmed on-location in Santa Cruz, CA.  I couldn’t remember the stand in name used in place on Santa Cruz in the Vampire drama starring “The Coreys” (Feldman and Haim) and Kiefer Sutherland.  Of course, Santa Carla is the answer.  

For those of you who’ve already listened to the podcast, below is a picture of Rebecca donning the infamous orange NextSpace wig.  If you haven’t listened yet, this picture shall serve as a preview of the fun to be heard.

The British are Coming!  Yes, the Rolling Stones are on tour in celebration of their 50^th anniversary.  There has been a lot of talk about the ticket prices for the “50 & Counting….” tour, which have an average price of over $500 for the two Bay Area shows.  Many long-time fans are priced out of this go around.  Generally, speaking, ticket prices have gone up dramatically in the last decade.  There are a number of factors contributing to the rise in ticket prices for concerts, including the “360” Deal. 

Traditionally, a record company received income off the sale of master recordings by bands that it had under contract (see,  owned). The record company would pocket 80% of the profits from the sale of an album giving 20% to the band or artist. Things like touring, merchandise and publishing were usually not part the recording contract. However, once digital downloads hit the scene income from album sales dropped dramatically.  Record companies seeking to find profits where they could, started offering artists and bands “360” deals, meaning the record company got a financial piece of all activities in the entertainment industry.

While it may be the case that the Stones are simply big enough to command $500 ticket prices, the general increase we’ve seen in prices is partly due to the fact that bands and artist now have to share touring income with their record company.  If you want to find out more about recording contracts I’ll be speaking on the topic at this year’s California Music Industry Summit, happening the weekend of June 15^th and Laney College in Oakland.

Finally, an interesting ruling came down in the 9^th Circuit last month involving the Jersey Boys.  As part of the hit musical a clip form the old the Ed Sullivan Show was shown in connection with a segment showing the Four Seasons battling the British Invasion of the late 60s (another Stones reference?). The owners of the rights to the Sullivan Show sued the Jersey Boys producer for copyright infringement.  The producer countered with a fair use argument based on commentary and criticism (for more on fair use check out this podcast episode). The 9^th Circuit ruled that the use was, indeed, fair use as far as the stage play, but warned that the use might infringe should it ever be used in connection with a recorded (TV or Film) version of the Jersey Boys.  Interesting, at least for all us copyright lawyers.  

Until next month…

You understand and agree that use of this blog does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided on this blog is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.

by Leslie O'Callaghan 

The following article discusses the various legal issues related to online advertising for lawyers..

I.  Introduction

Radio and television advertising has often been mocked as sensationalist and dramatic.  Although these advertisements may seem trivial to viewers, the attorneys who create them must follow strict ethical guidelines.  Broadcasting advertisements on radio and television have already been widely addressed and accounted for by the ethical rules, but broadcasting has since expanded with the Internet.  Podcasting, specifically, uniquely involves a combination of the Internet and broadcasting.  The unique combination of mediums involved in podcasting begs the question of, what ethical rules apply to this modern medium? 

Broadcasting on television and radio has existed since the Supreme Court decided Bates v. State Bar of Arizona.[1]  Bates, held that a blanket restriction on legal advertisements violated attorneys First Amendment rights, and thus allowed for legal advertisements for the first time.[2]  The Bates case is the most seminal case on legal advertising but it was decided before the Internet existed. 

The Internet has a high information capacity, meaning users are unlimited in the content they put on the Internet.  Unlike advertisements on television and radio, lawyers advertising on the Internet are not charged by the length of time that their advertisement runs and they are not regulated by a third party such as a cable network.   For example, blogging is free to create and has an unlimited capacity for information.  A blogger can put as much information out on the web as they like with no limitations on content.  An advertisement broadcast on the radio or television does not have such freedom.  They are typically limited to minute long time segments, which are broadcast and then “disappear” whereas a blog can be left on a screen for unlimited periods of time.  Furthermore, an individual can create, distribute and update their blog on their own without any regulation by a third party.  Television and radio advertising requires their creators to follow guidelines provided by the individual that they are buying the advertising time from. 

Secondly, the Internet can be viewed worldwide.  Radio and television commercials are often limited to a certain demographic, this is economically feasible for an attorney and it also guarantees that laws specific to a state will stay within that state.  Laws are different from state to state and an attorney on radio or television can limit their message to providers within the state that they practice.  If an attorney wants to put out a television advertisement regarding a class action suit based on personal injury case in New York they can take precautions to try and limit their audience to New Yorkers and thus avoid presenting state specific laws to the wrong state.  Certainly, an individual visiting New York from out of state may view this commercial, but by targeting a geographical area the attorney is still taking measures to prevent as much misinformation as possible.   This level of control over who can view the advertisement is not present with the Internet, and is key to not “misleading” the audience.  The “misleading” standard is the crux of the ethical rules governing advertisements. 

Finally, there are many different mediums that attorneys can use on the Internet.  There is live chat, e-mail, video, audio and now podcasting.  These different mediums require different analysis, unlike television and radio, which is generally more limited in its capacity. 

There is little guidance in the model rules directly addressing the ethical rules involved with podcasting.  The word podcasting doesn’t appear in either the Model Rules, the comments on the Model Rules or in the California Rules of Professional Conduct.  Recently, application of the Model Rules to the Internet has caused revisions and new opinions; most notably blogging and social networking sites have received attention.  These revisions are included in the 2002 revisions of the Model Rules.  A closer look at these rules reveals how the Model Rules apply to podcasts.  Although the above-mentioned concerns are present with regard to advertising on the Internet, specifically podcasting, the Model Rules can still be applied to podcasts. 

II.  Podcasts and the Model Rules governing Advertisements

Historically, the Model rules stated that lawyers should not seek out clientele and should not advertise.  But, after the Bates case the court acknowledged that this historical concern was outweighed by the public interest, specifically, a need for individuals to be informed and thus able to receive legal services.[3]   This sentiment, that advertising is important to the legal profession, is reflected in the comments to Model Rule 7.2 on advertising.[4] 

There is no Model Rule, or California Rule of Professional Conduct that expressly defines what constitutes an advertisement.  However, caselaw addressing the ethical issues surrounding advertisements has included lawyers’ websites and blogs.[5]  Thus, it is safe to assume that a podcast would similarly be considered advertising that must comport with the legal rules of ethics governing advertisements.

In 2002, the ABA House of Delegates adopted changes to the Model Rules.  Many of those changes involve the addition of terms to govern the technology that the modern lawyer faces.  The rules have not been applied to the specific area of podcasting but the changes that have been made are indicative of how the court will respond to inquiries over podcasts in the future.  Most important to the issue of the regulation of podcasts, section seven of the Model Rules governing “Information about Legal Services” was revised.

Model Rule 7.1 is the first, and broadest rule governing information about legal services.  It states that, “a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.”[6]  This rule is applicable to all types of advertising, regardless of medium.  Many miscommunication issues that can arise when an attorney puts out information to a wide audience fall back on this rule.  Thus it is important, at the most basic level, that an attorney is clear and truthful in their podcast.   

Model Rule 7.2 addresses advertisements specifically, and is the most important rule regarding the creation, and ethical implications involved with podcasts.[7]  Model Rule 7.2(a) states, “a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication…”[8]  This section of the rule was revised from is pre-2002 version to include the word “electronic” communication.  Thus, this section of the Model Rules is what allows for advertising via podcasting.

Part (b) to the rule sheds light on the costs that attorneys are allowed to pay for advertisements or communications permitted by the rule.[9]  Lawyers are restricted in what they can pay individuals who recommend the lawyers services.[10]  Most commonly, this section applies to lawyer referral services.  But the rule is also applicable to paying advertisers who are, in a way, recommending the lawyers services by assisting them with their advertisement.  Comment five to Model Rule 7.2 states, “A lawyer may compensate employees, agents and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff and website designers.”[11]  Comment 5 to rule 7.2 is key to the production of a podcast.  Podcasts require technical savvy and thus properly executing a podcast will often require lawyers to work with non-lawyers.  This comment to the rule allows for the attorney to compensate non-lawyer assistants who aid them in the creation of their podcast. 

Record Keeping

Podcasting, blogging and other sources of information on the Internet present a challenge to attorneys who are required to maintain records of their communications.  By it’s nature, the Internet is designed to function as an up to date, constantly evolving source of information.  It would be difficult for an attorney to save every version of a blog or website that is constantly being updated.  The sheer amount of information that can be conveyed on an Internet advertisement, coupled with the ease of editing this information would require attorneys to save every version of the content.  Furthermore, it would be a disservice to the consumer who could be presented with outdated information because an attorney could not easily update their information due to onerous record-keeping standards. 

The recording rules outlined in the pre-2002 version of the Model Rules required that an attorney keep a copy or recording of an advertisement or communication for two years, as well as a record of when and where it was used.[12]  But in 2002, the ABA House of Delegates deleted this record keeping provision from the Model Rules previously found at Model Rule 7.2(b).  The recording requirement included in the pre-2002 version of the Model Rules existed as a means to “facilitate enforcement” of the Model Rules governing advertising.[13]  In coming to the conclusion that the provision should be deleted the Ethics 2000 Committee recognized that this was an onerous standard that had “become increasingly burdensome” and that such records were “seldom used for disciplinary purposes.”[14]  This alleviates the challenges that attorneys face when attempting to record information on the Internet.  However, California still has a recording requirement.  Rule 1-400 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct requires an attorney keep records of their advertisements for two years.[15]  

Information conveyed on the Internet can still be maintained.  Attorneys can archive posts or save data to a hard drive.  It is important that attorneys recognize that legal blogs, websites or podcasts require special care and are subject to regulations that non-legal blogs, websites or podcasts are not.  An attorney should be careful to only publish well thought out information.  Then, if this information requires updates or edits a note could be made at the bottom of the content signifying the change.  This would solve the issue of having to save multiple versions of content.  

Avoiding Confusion over Jurisdiction

New additions to the Model Rules help protect attorneys from misleading consumers across the multijurisdictional reach of Internet advertising.  As an advertisement, a podcast must include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.[16]  The previous Model Rule regarding these disclosures did not require the lawyer to include an address.  According to the recommendations of the Ethics 2000 Commission this addition to the 2002 version of the Model Rules was a direct response to the multijurisdictional nature that the Internet presents.[17] 

A television or radio broadcast can be limited in scope with regard to the specific audience that it reaches.  Lawyers practicing California law can take precautions to try and limit their television or radio audience, geographically, to California.  The Internet does not provide this geographical limitation.  This could potentially cause great confusion among individuals who read, or listen to information presented on a podcast by a lawyer that may be inaccurate due to the state in which the lawyer’s practice relates.  By providing an address the Model Rules seek to avoid this problem by clearly identifying to individuals where the information pertains.  The disclosure of an address may not be clear enough to a layperson to inform them of the different state and federal jurisdictions.  Thus, it may be advisable for an attorney to be even more clear by including a disclaimer about where the specific laws they are talking about control. 

III.  Content of the Podcast

The above-mentioned guidelines govern what an advertisement is and the format requirements that those advertisements must meet.  The following rules focus on the content of those advertisements.   What is said in an advertisement is just as important as the format of the advertisement.

Client Confidences and the First Amendment

Under ABA rule 1.6(a) a lawyer “shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.”[18]  There are a few exceptions outlined in this rule but they relate to breaking confidence out of necessity such as when it is in the public interest.  The comments note, “…trust…is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship.”[19]  It is imperative to effective representation for clients to be entirely truthful to attorneys without having to worry about confidentiality. 

Model Rule 1.6 applies, specifically, to information relating to the representation of a client during the lawyers representation of that client.[20]  However, the Model Rules also provide similar standards of confidentiality to prospective clients and former clients.  Model Rule 1.18(b) makes the duty of confidentiality applicable to information conveyed by prospective clients.[21]  A prospective client is someone who “discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship.”[22]  Furthermore, the duty of confidentiality continues after the client-attorney relationship ends.[23] 

Rule 3-100 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct is similar but stresses the importance of confidentiality even more, referring to Business and Professions Code section 6068 (e)(1), which states that it is a duty of a member to “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”[24]  This rule also allows for informed consent by the client for a breach of confidentiality. 

These rules may seem straightforward but, recently, in the context of blogs there has been conflict about client confidences.  It is common for attorneys to refer to cases that they’ve worked on or won as evidence to future clients that they are competent.  Attorneys can publish this type of information if the client consents.  Attorneys may also publish this content if the information is public.  A lawyer’s ability to speak about public information from cases is protected by the First Amendment but, if the speech is identified as commercial speech, it can be regulated.  This First Amendment justification for breaking a client’s confidences is controversial. 

Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court addressed the issue of client confidentiality in the context of blogging.  In Hunter v. Virginia State Bar, an attorney blogged about some of his closed cases revealing client names and case outcomes without obtaining consent from his clients.[25]  The attorney argued that he had a First Amendment right to reveal this information because it was public.[26]  The Court held that the attorney did have a First Amendment right to discuss public information, however, the Court also ruled that his speech constituted commercial speech, which could be regulated by the Bar.[27]  In Virginia, that meant that the attorney had to publish a disclaimer on his website.[28]  The conflict that arose in Virginia could easily be avoided by keeping client anecdotes limited to those who consent or by using other means to keep clients anonymous.    

Attorneys can use hypotheticals or other means to keep their clients identity disguised, in which case they would not need consent to discuss a case.[29]  Comment four to Model Rule 1.6 cautions against this, clarifying, if a third party could reasonably determine whom the information pertains to it is in violation of the rule.[30]  Simply changing a name or a fact in an anecdote may not be enough to disguise a client’s identity and can still be considered a breach of confidence.  Blogs, websites and podcasts are a unique area where attorneys can share long stories about the representation of their clients.  Attorneys must be careful to maintain client confidences in these anecdotes unless they have informed consent. 

In conclusion, the Model Rules may never mention the term podcast but they certainly govern attorneys’ use of podcasts.  Recent changes in the rules to account for technology show the Ethics Committees recognition that the rules need to be updated to allow for new technology.  Podcasts are no exception to this view that the use of the Internet by the legal profession only aids in providing qualified legal service to as many individuals as possible.  Nonetheless, attorneys must be careful to treat their professional use of the Internet as an area that is uniquely regulated.  Although, blogs, websites, and podcasts are generally unregulated forms of communication, the legal profession is subject to different standards.  The standards of ethics determined by the ABA must be abided by, even for this freeform type of communication.     

Leslie O'Callaghan is a contributor to the B.E.S.T. Law Blog published by ARC Law Group. She's a recent graduate of  the University of San Francisco School of Law, where she was the Executive Articles Editor of the USF Maritime Law Journal. Leslie can be reached at lcocalla@gmail.com.

You understand and agree that use of this blog does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided on this blog is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.

Podcast: Business Entities

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, we get down to business with a discussion on business entities.  Corporations, limited liability companies (LLC),  partnerships, sole proprietors.  Find out which is best for your business needs and when you should think about forming. 

Plus, ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson and Rebecca Brian, COO of NextSpace, enter the world of co-working.  Rebecca collaborates with us on a lively discussion about how NextSpace is reinventing the way we work together and why it’s a better option than your living room couch. 

 The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of Johannes Luley.  The LA-based guitarist and producer released his latest solo album earlier this year titled “Tales From Sheepfathers Grove”. The album and the songs we feature this month are described as beautiful acoustic and symphonic prog rock. Sounds just about right.

NextSpace can be found at www.nextspace.us.

Buy Johannes’ music on iTunes or visit his recording studio at www.mysonictemple.com.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com.

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.

Related articles

Podcast: Right of Publicity and Endorsements

Podcast: Right of Publicity and Endorsements

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, we discuss the different ways that actors, musicians, athletes and other entertainers use their celebrity to make additional income.  Endorsing products, making appearances and selling the right of publicity can be very lucrative, if you avoid issue like over-exposure and tax troubles. 

Plus, ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson gets in the ring with MMA expert Michael Bruno. As we close in on the April 20^th UFC fight in San Jose, we learn out how the sport of Mixed Martial Arts went from a novelty to one of the biggest live events in sports. Michael gives us insight into his career in the world of MMA, where he’s trained and managed fighters and currently distributes gear for Fairtex USA, a leading MMA equipment brand. 

The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of XY Unlimited.  The SoCal band draws inspiration from Fleetwood Mac, Fall Out Boy, and Glee. The podcast features a few cuts including Free off their EP “XY Is Looking For Answers”. You can also find out more about the band by checking them out at www.xyunlimited.com.

Fairtex USA can be found at www.fairtexusa.com.

Buy XY Unlimited’s music on iTunes.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal issue

Related articles

February Newsletter

Podcast: Listener Questions

Podcast: Music Copyright

Podcast: Listener Questions

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, we're opening up the Mail Bag.  ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson and law clerk Ben Shaw take on some of your toughest (well, not too tough) questions related to music, copyright, working with managers and lawyers and more.

(Photos Courtesy In The Make)

Plus, Mark finds the prefect medium for introducing the public to great artists, In The Make. Writer, Nikki Grattan, and photograhper, Klea McKenna, take us inside In The Make for a look at working artists on the West Coast. As they gear up for a 7-week trek along the Western Edge, the girls share their collective passion for art, artists and the stories that make their online publication so fascinating.

The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of Chicago's own, Vintage Blue. A new favorite of Mark and Ben, we crank up the tunes "Speak" and "California Road" off the album Strike the Mics.

Here's a bonus video of Vintage Blue doing "California Road":

Learn about the band and where you can hear them play on their website www.vinagebluemusic.com

You can also find them on Facebook Page.

Buy Strike the Mics on iTunes.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal

Related articles

Podcast: Music Copyright

February Newsletter

Greetings from all of us here at ARC Law Group.

Late last month I had the privilege of moderating a panel on Music Licensing at this year's California Lawyers for the Arts, Music Business Seminar.  This is my fifth time speaking at the annual event, and each year has been better than the last.  I want to thank my esteemed panelists Erik Metzger from Intel, Brooke Wentz from the The Rights Workshop and Keith Cooper from de la Pena & Holiday, LLP. We had a lively discussion and it was great having Brooke on the panel to offset us lawyers.  Brooke and The Rights Workshop do wonderful work finding music to place in movies, television programs and other licensing avenues.

 Also, on the Podcast is musician Anna Carow.  

It's February, and that means that love is in the air, especially here at ARC Law Group.  Partner Jeff Farr, our resident live music expert, tells us that he loves Day on the Green, Power to the Peaceful and the Black Sheep Family Reunion music festivals.  All great choices, but I was surprised he didn't go with Lilith Fair.

When it comes to musicians, Law Clerk Ben Shaw loves him some Duane Allman, The Beatles and First Aid Kit.  Duane must have inspired Ben's fantastic slide guitar work and the Beatles are always an obvious choice when it comes to most loved bands.  However, I must admit that I was not familiar with First Aid Kit.  Thank you for turning me on to something I hadn't heard before. (Bye the way, this month's Podcast guest Anna Carow often uses Ben's slide guitar work when playing live.) 

Law Clerk, Katherine West, says that when it comes to eating out she loves Mio Vicino in Santa Clara, Fontina Ristorante in Pleasanton and Campo di Bocce in Pleasanton (a fun place to actually play Bocce Ball).  I'm guessing she's also a fan of the Godfather, Goodfellas and The Sopranos.  Pass the pasta Ms. West.

Speaking of genre movies, Law Clerk (and self-proclaimed cinephile) Will Dugoni says he loves watching Gladiator, 300 and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.  Glad to see he was specific with his LOTR film choice, and if anyone out there wants to be Will's Valentine he'd love a pair of sandals or a sword.

 As for me, I love television.  I couldn't go on living without Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, but my true love will always be Lost (even if the ending left a little to be desired).

 When it comes to entertainment, what do you love?

 Until next month.

Related articles

Podcast: Working With Children

Podcast: Music Copyright

Podcast: Music Copyright

(Photos Courtesy Anna Carow)

Plus, Mark gets down to earth with singer-songwriter Anna Carow.  The Texas native takes us behind the music of her debut album City Songs, and tells us what it was like recording just outside Woodstock, New York. Plus, we tie into our discussion on music copyright by finding out why she values being an independent musician.

The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of Anna Carow and features tunes from the City Songs album.

Here's a bonus video of Anna doing here ode to Nick Drake, "Nick's Song". 

To learn more about Anna Carow and her unique earthy sounds go to her Facebook Page.

To buy City Songs visit Anna on iTunes

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal

Podcast: Working With Children

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, we kick off the New Year with kids!  ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson gets nostalgic for his youth when Christa Dahlstrom stops by to share her passion for a new children’s program called Flummox and Friends.  Christa, the creative genius behind the show about creative geniuses, tells us what it’s like to be an independent television producer and introduces us to all the characters, music and the message behind Flummox and Friends.

(Photos Courtesy Flummox Labs, LLC)

Plus, Mark and law clerk, Ben Shaw, discuss working with children in the entertainment industry. Find out some tips for contracting with minors under the age of 18.  Plus, a brief overview of some of the issues faced when targeting the youth audience online.

The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of Flummox Labs, LLC.  All of the songs you heard are part of the pilot episode for Flummox and Friends.  As mentioned in the podcast, you can watch the pilot below, or you can visit www.flummoxandfriends.com for a more in depth look at the show.  

To learn more about Flummox and Friends go to www.flummoxandfriends.com. 

To find out about communication specialist Liesl Wenzke Hartmann and Jordan Sadler please visit their website www.communicationtherapy.net

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com.

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.

Podcast: Franchising

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, just in time for the holiday shopping season, we meet the owners of Tantrum, a unique boutique in San Francisco featuring vintage and vintage-themed toys, clothing and collectibles. Michelle Spear and Amanda Weld take ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson on a ride through the shop and introduce us to their favorite in-store items as they share stories about the inspiration for the creative vision behind Tantrum.

 
Photos by Myleen Hollero © Photo by Myleen Hollero

Plus, Mark and law clerk, Ben Shaw, discuss franchising your business. Find out how a franchise is created under federal and state law and how a franchise differs from a licensing agreement. 

The music on this month’s podcast is courtesy of A Decent Animal.  The band includes musicians Jonathan Nicholson and Richard Weld; the husbands of this month’s podcast guests, Michelle and Amanda. The track Cicus Cirkus is an independent release from the band, and can be heard by visiting their page on MySpace. You can also find out more about the band by checking them out on Facebook.

To learn more about Tantrum and how you can ride on the seal or visit Big Ted go to www.shoptantrum.com

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com.

40:36

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.

Podcast: Talent Management Agreements

This month on the Business Entertainment Sports and Technology Law Podcast, Traci Holian and ARC Law Group partner Mark Pearson discuss talent management agreements.  When is it time to sign with a manager and what pitfalls can come from entering into a bad agreement?

  Plus, Traci gets funny with comedian Miles K, as they discuss his San Francisco based variety show. Miles K tells us what it’s like performing his dark brand of comedy for audiences in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  You’ll also learn how comedy is changing to fit the technological advances of 2012. You can find Miles touring around the country or on his home stage at the Punch Line Comedy Club. Miles also has a blog, cleverthingstosay.com and he is featured on Rooftop Comedy, Collegehumor.com and Cracked.com.

The music you heard on the podcast was the track Made to Stand from the band Photograph Stereo.  You can find out more about the band and where to get their latest EP by checking out their page on Facebook.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this podcast or would like to pose a question to be answered in an upcoming podcast email us at info@arclg.com.

10:27

You understand and agree that listening to this podcast does not in any way create or establish an attorney-client relationship between you and any ARC Law Group attorney. You should recognize that the information provided in this podcast is provided for your general information and should not be relied on as legal advice and is not a substitute for direct consultation with an attorney about a specific legal problem.