171 Cal.App.4th 336, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
在此先說明，被告其實是一間律所；在美國律所常以律師名來命名，而律所不只一位律師，通常有好幾位律師。從案子的標題來看Seyfarth Shaw應該是主持律師，LLP是有限責任合夥，不似我國律師都是合夥但是是無限責任。
Billy Blanks, developer of "Tae Bo," sued his former accountants and unofficial business manager, Jeffrey Greenfield, for mismanagement and breach of contract. Greenfield, unlicensed as a talent agent, had taken over many aspects of Blanks's business, including negotiating deals that Blanks alleged were detrimental to his interests. After learning of Greenfield's unlicensed status, Blanks hired the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP to pursue recovery of monies paid to Greenfield. Seyfarth Shaw failed to file a petition with the Labor Commissioner within the one-year statute of limitations as required by the Talent Agencies Act (TAA), leading to the dismissal of Blanks's claims against Greenfield. Blanks then filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Seyfarth Shaw and William H. Lancaster, alleging they failed to timely file the petition, which directly resulted in his inability to recover approximately $10.6 million paid to Greenfield.
Billy Blanks係「跆搏健身操」之創始人，其對前會計兼經理Greenfield就違失經營及違反契約等提起訴訟。Greenfield係無照之藝人經紀人，掌管許多Blank的生意，例如：為Blank之利益對外談生意。在獲知Greenfield係無執業執照後，Blank委請律師Seyfarth Shaw對Greenfield起訴，要求返還任職期間從Blank身上所獲取之佣金。但Seyfarth Shaw並未於1年內依加州藝人經紀法向Labor Commissioner提起救濟，因而造成Blank對Greenfield之訴被駁回。Blank轉向Seyfarth Shawf與William H. Lancaster求償，主張伊等未適時提起救濟，造成Blank無法向Greenfield請求返還1千零60萬美元。
The primary issue is whether Seyfarth Shaw and Lancaster committed legal malpractice by failing to timely file a petition with the Labor Commissioner under the Talent Agencies Act, and if so, the extent of damages owed to Blanks for this failure.
Seyfarth Shaw 與Lancaster未能依加州藝人經紀法適時向勞動委員會提起救濟，構成業務過失？
假如是的話，損害賠償的範圍？
The court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court had erred in instructing the jury that contracts under the TAA are void ab initio without considering the doctrine of severability. The appellate court also found that the trial court exceeded its authority by deciding, as a matter of law, that Seyfarth Shaw was negligent for missing the TAA statute of limitations.
The appellate court reasoned that the Talent Agencies Act (TAA) requires all disputes to be initially referred to the Labor Commissioner within one year, a procedural requirement that cannot be circumvented by filing a claim under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) with a longer statute of limitations. The court emphasized the importance of the doctrine of severability, which allows for the separation of legal and illegal parts of a contract, potentially allowing Greenfield to retain payments for services not requiring a talent agent's license. The appellate court criticized the trial court's instructions that precluded jury consideration of severability, determining that such instructions affected the entire trial, including the assessment of damages. Additionally, the appellate court addressed the trial court's overreach in preemptively finding Seyfarth Shaw negligent without a full presentation of facts, which should have been left to the jury to decide based on evidence of standard legal practice and informed judgment.
