Gerik Jenco, a University of Pittsburgh law student who is also the Director of Operations for Del Duca Sports, came up with the idea of creating a Sports Law Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association.  The chair of the Committee is former NFL Player, attorney-agent, and sports law educator, Ralph Cindrich.  Sports attorney Jay Reisinger is the Committee’s vice chair.

Roughly a dozen people showed up to the Committee’s first meeting, but the group is expected to grow to about thirty members strong.  If you are a sports lawyer or law student in the Greater Pittsburgh area and think you would be interested in becoming a part of the group, reach out to one of the people linked above.

Pittsburgh Sports Law Committee from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

I never reached out to Luchs.  But, after reading George Dohrmann’s piece that was published yesterday, I did find an article from August 2007, which discussed Luchs’ NFLPA mandated arbitration battle against Wichard and his attorney, Silber.  Prominent sports attorney, David Cornwell, was counsel for Luchs.

Luchs was protesting his 1 year NFLPA certification suspension in addition to a fine he was told to pay.  As you may know from the Dohrmann article, the NFLPA denied the appeal of Luchs’ suspension.  Luchs states,

I should have been suspended 100 times for all the players I paid, but not for what they did suspend me for.

Looking Back To Josh Luchs’ NFLPA Discipline from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

Darren Heitner: What percentage of your firm’s work is related to Sports Law?  What about your individual work?

Jay Reisinger: My personal caseload is about 85% Sports Law related.  Sports Law is about 50% of my firm’s total caseload. My firm also handles white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.

Heitner: What is the most interesting Sports Law case you have ever litigated?

Reisinger: I’ve been lucky that in my career in that I have had a number of interesting Sports Law cases.  However, the most interesting Sports Law matter that I handled was Sammy Sosa’s testimony before Congress related to performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball.  The shear number of interested parties and competing interests created an intriguing and challenging atmosphere.  It was also the first case that I worked on with James Sharp, a well-known Washington, D.C. trial attorney who has also worked with me on Andy Pettitte and Alex Rodriguez.

Heitner: What are your thoughts on the current final-offer arbitration in baseball?  Any ideas on how to make the proceedings leading up to a hearing, and the hearing itself, more effective?

Reisinger: I believe that final-offer arbitration works to the benefit of the entire salary arbitration system.  Final-offer arbitration encourages mutually agreed upon settlements, which is why, on a percentage basis, very few cases actually go to hearing.  Hearings are reserved for those cases where, in the main, there is a philosophical chasm between the player and the club. Given that the system works well for all parties, I am not in favor of making any modifications to it.

Heitner: Does your negotiation strategy include anything that we won’t find much of in negotiation textbooks?

Reisinger: I’m not sure that I read any negotiation textbooks, so I’m not sure what’s in them!  I truly believe that it’s a skill acquired through experience.  That being said, I have found that the most useful negotiating tactic is preparation.  The ability to quickly counter on specific negotiating points at the table has served me extremely well.  Further, if you prepare for every eventuality, you are never surprised.

Heitner: Should the NCAA’s no-agent rule be abolished, or at least modified?

Reisinger: At a minimum, it should be modified.  The James Paxton and Andy Oliver cases were perfect examples.  How is a college (or potentially college-bound) student supposed to make life-changing decisions without appropriate and experienced counsel?  Quite frankly, the NCAA’s position on the matter is outrageous.

Heitner: You are a certified player agent with the MLBPA. Do you currently represent anybody on a team’s 40man roster? Who have been your more noteworthy clients?

Reisinger: I am a certified agent with the MLBPA, but I don’t represent (as an agent) any player on a 40-man roster.  I represent professional and amateur athletes as an attorney.  I represent athletes in disciplinary matters, grievance proceedings, eligibility matters, criminal and civil litigation, and salary arbitration.  I have represented players such as Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettitte, Alex Rodriguez, and Francisco Rodriguez, just to name a few.

Heitner: Does your firm have any plans to expand outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or to hire any new associates?

Reisinger: As it stands now, we have a nationwide practice that just happens to be based in Pittsburgh.  We are always looking for talented attorneys and staff who share our passion for the work that we perform for our clients.

Heitner: What would you suggest to somebody who is interested in not only being a sports agent, but practicing in the area of Sports Law?

Reisinger: The most important advice that I can give to those interested in Sports Law is to get practical legal experience in areas outside of Sports Law.  Prior to focusing on Sports Law, I practiced primarily white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.  The experience that I gained in these areas, including litigation skills, has served me, and more importantly, my clients, well.

Q&A With Sports Attorney Jay Reisinger from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

I can’t argue with the fact that there is solid precedent that player/agent contracts are terminable at will, but why does the type of a valid, enforceable contract (terminable at will contracts included) play any role in the quasi-intentional tort of interference with contractual relations?  I posit that it does not.  Additionally, the problem with looking to the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage is that with this tort, it seems more clear that it would not apply when the defendant is acting to benefit his own business interests.  Personally, I believe that Reisinger’s concern about competition trumping an interference with contractual relations claim is misplaced, and instead should be placed with the interference with prospective economic advantage tort.  Under this economic tort, a rival agent would likely be able to get away with entering into secret negotiations with the old agent’s clients and get away unscathed.  But I understand where Reisinger is coming from.  As he points out in another tweet, there is secondary authority (for trials outside the reach of Illinois law) when it comes to interference with contractual relations in the world of sports agency.  Unfortunately, I think the court in that case ended up with a poor holding.

Let’s take a look at the case of Speakers of Sports, Inc. v. ProServ Inc., which was decided over 11 years ago in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In that case, Speakers of Sport claimed that ProServ intentionally interfered with its contractual relations with Ivan Rodriguez by inviting Rodriguez to ProServ’s office and promising Rogriguez a certain amount of money in endorsements.  Summary judgment was granted to ProServ by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Circuit Court.  It looked like the Circuit Court might get it right when it said,

inducing the termination of a contract, even when the termination is not a breach because the contract is terminable at will, can still be actionable under the tort law of Illinois, either as an interference with prospective economic advantage, or as an interference with the contract at will itself.

But it went on to say,

Competition is not a tort, but on the contrary provides a defense (the “competitor’s privilege”) to the tort of improper interference. It does not privilege inducing a breach of contract, but it does privilege inducing the lawful termination of a contract that is terminable at will. Sellers (including agents, who are sellers of services) do not “own” their customers, at least not without a contract with them that is not terminable at will.

Why does it matter that the contract is terminable at will?  Both are contracts, and both are being terminated based on an inducement by a third party.  And what if the agent has a contract with a client that stipulates that the contract is not terminable at will?  Or are all principal/agent contracts terminable at will no matter what is written within the 4 corners of the written document?

One important point about the case is that its dicta says that it should be okay for an agent to promise the client of another agent that he could do better for the client.  But what about making comments about the incapacity or inability of the client’s old agent while the old agent is still the representative of record?

The Court seems to be very concerned that competition will be severely limited should an agent have a leg to stand on in a claim of interference in his contractual relations with a client.  Really, though?  This is one of the most competitive industries whether or not the claim exists.  If I no longer have the ability to try to pry away a competitors client, that I know to be a competitor’s client, am I that severely limited in my trade?

I disagree with the Court when it says,

Worse, the established standards of a trade or profession in regard to competition, and its ideas of unethical competitive conduct, are likely to reflect a desire to limit competition for reasons related to the self-interest of the trade or profession rather than to the welfare of its customers or clients.

You don’t think athletes will benefit from a legitimate scare tactic available to be used against unscrupulous agents who will say anything to a client under contract in order to make him one of “his own”?  Athletes have a lot to gain.  If they are unhappy with their agent, they hear other players talking about how good their agents are, etc, they have no restraint in breaking their agency contract and finding a new agent.  Why then does the Court find it so necessary that agents need also be allowed to interfere and potentially break up good relationships, which may end up causing harm to the athlete in the long run?

Digging Deeper Into The Contractual Interference Claim from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

I have some great news to share early in the game.  The Tampa Bay Rays had expressed interest in Alvin’s work recently.  For weeks, I had been going back and forth corresponding with multiple people in the organization.  Finally, I received word that Carl Crawford had checked out Alvin’s work and liked it, and the Rays had plans to use it.

I am excited to announce that the Rays will use signed prints of Alvin’s original 22″ x 30″ illustration of Carl Crawford, featured at the top of this article, as raffle items for their season ticket holders.  Additionally, I arranged for Alvin to meet Carl Crawford at Tropicana Field in July.  We were told that Carl would sign the original illustration.

The original is a mixed medium piece, with a combination of colored pencil, watercolor, and acrylic.  The illustration presents Crawford batting with a sunburst from the new logo in the background.  Alvin is one of the first artists to capture a Rays’ player in the new team uniform.

It was music to my ears to hear that I made Alvin’s day after I told him the news.  As a sports attorney, I have learned that representation comes down to building good relationships, no matter if it involves an artist, athlete, or musician.  Even though the work can become tedious at times, I really enjoy the personal side of representation.  It was a great feeling to celebrate this milestone with Alvin.  We are heading in the right direction and I hope to establish Alvin as a premier sports artist in the near future.

Illustration of Carl Crawford from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules