## Facts

- Billy Blanks and related entities retained Jeffrey Greenfield, a CPA and business manager, who also attempted to procure entertainment employment for Blanks despite not being a licensed talent agent under the Talent Agencies Act (TAA).
- Blanks alleged Greenfield’s unlicensed procurement and negotiation caused diminished employment opportunities and that Blanks paid Greenfield about $10.6 million under an arrangement violating the TAA.
- Blanks retained Seyfarth Shaw LLP and attorney William H. Lancaster to pursue claims against Greenfield, including a TAA-based theory.
- The TAA requires disputes seeking affirmative relief to be brought before the Labor Commissioner, subject to a one-year limitations period.
- Blanks’s TAA claim was not presented to the Labor Commissioner within one year; the Labor Commissioner later ruled the claim time-barred.
- Blanks sued Seyfarth and Lancaster for legal malpractice and related torts, claiming their handling of the TAA strategy caused the loss of an alleged near-automatic recovery of the $10.6 million paid to Greenfield.
- A jury returned a multimillion-dollar verdict for Blanks, including punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant seeking affirmative relief for a TAA violation may avoid the TAA’s one-year limitations period by proceeding under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on severability in evaluating damages tied to an allegedly mixed (lawful and unlawful) services arrangement.
3. Whether the discovery rule can extend the TAA’s one-year filing period with the Labor Commissioner on the facts presented.
4. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by deciding a matter not raised by a motion in limine.
5. Whether the defense of judgmental immunity had to be considered on remand in assessing attorney liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the malpractice judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that affirmative TAA relief must be pursued before the Labor Commissioner within the TAA’s one-year limitations period and cannot be extended by relying on the UCL’s longer period.
- The court held the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error by not properly instructing on severability.
- The court held the discovery rule did not extend the TAA limitations period in this case.
- The court held the trial court committed prejudicial error by addressing an issue not presented in a motion in limine.
- The court directed that judgmental immunity be addressed on remand.

## Legal Principles

- The Labor Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction over claims seeking affirmative relief under the TAA, and such claims must be filed within the one-year period set by Labor Code § 1700.44(c).
- A party may not obtain affirmative TAA relief by recasting the claim under the UCL to use the UCL’s longer statute of limitations.
- When an agreement includes both lawful services and unlawful unlicensed procurement, severability principles may permit partial enforceability; the factfinder must be properly instructed to avoid an automatic “all-or-nothing” recovery theory.
- On the facts presented, the discovery rule did not delay accrual to extend the TAA’s one-year limitations period.
- A trial court’s decision of a substantive matter outside the scope of a motion in limine can be prejudicial error requiring reversal.
- In legal malpractice actions involving reasonable tactical decisions in unsettled legal areas, judgmental immunity must be considered as a potential defense.

## Conclusion

The court overturned the large malpractice verdict because affirmative relief under the Talent Agencies Act must be sought before the Labor Commissioner within one year, the jury was not properly instructed on severability for mixed lawful/unlawful services arrangements, and additional prejudicial trial errors occurred; the matter was remanded with instructions to address judgmental immunity.


Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)