Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page


Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Business > Agents, Lawyers & Managers
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2005, 04:35 PM   #1
Posts: n/a
Default Marv Dauer Management?

Anyone have any dealings with Marv Dauer Management? Would they be worth signing with as a new screenwriter?
Any information about them would be helpful because I need to make a decision.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2005, 12:38 PM   #2
Cole Blackburn
Posts: n/a

I'd look closely at this governmental action.
It should make your decision.
Look under Marv Dauer Case 21-00.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 11:50 AM   #3
Posts: n/a

Interesting - is that how people get out of their manager contracts? By accusing them of acting as talent agents?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 12:56 PM   #4
Posts: n/a
Default huh?

Dude. I'd look more closely at your perscription.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 01:19 PM   #5
Posts: n/a

Just to clarify -- you are warning someone away from a manager who was found guilty by the Labor Commission of "[introducing] his clients to major producers" after his client alleged "that throughout the length of the agreement, Dauer attempted to procure employment opportunities on his behalf".

Unlike a lot of managers, at least Dauer's abilities are a matter of public record!

If a manager is beyond reproach vis-a-vis the California Talent Agent Act then it probably means they are not earning their percentage. Everyone knows and accepts this. It's not in a writer's interest for managers to negotiate contracts (which is most certianly illegal) but they should be picking up the phone and sending out scripts.

Also, the Labor Commission judgement you are referring people to as if it somehow singles out Dauer for being a poor manager was overturned on appeal.

As KC pointed out, it was just a way of getting out of paying commission.

Re the original question, Marv Dauer manage actors and I don't know if they have any writers as clients. If you have been offered representation with them then you'll have ask what screenwriters they have on their books -- otherwise they wouldn't be on the top of my list for the reason that they manage talent.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2005, 09:09 AM   #6
Cole Blackburn
Posts: n/a

You wrongly assumed I was warning him away because of the Labor Board action or his activities as a "talent agent".
It isn't the case.
My concern is more fundamental. Perhaps you skipped over these passages.
"The petitioner's (Behr) credibility was not the only party whose testimony was UNRELIABLE. The respondent (Dauer) was also IMPEACHED several times and his self-serving, often CONTRADICTORY testimony was unable to establish his defense and ultimately confirmed his culpability."
"In prior SWORN deposition testimony, Dauer admitted that he introduced his clients to "major producer(s) of films" for meetings, but was unable to provide an explanation why he would do so, other than stating, "it was just a meeting. It wasn't going to be a film or anything. (sic) Just to meet him." THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT BELIEVABLE."

I believe a person's actions are a reflection of their character.
In the above statements, Mr. Dauer was characterized as; (1) testimony unreliable (2) his testimony was impeached several times (3) contradictory testimony (4) his explanation (under oath) was not believable.

You don't have to be a legal expert to figure out what all of these mean.
They mean that Mr. Dauer didn't tell the truth.
I don't know him and have no associations with him.
All I know is what I read from the Department of Labor report.
You have to make up your own mind about whether or not
you would want Mr. Dauer to represent you and handle your money.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2005, 01:02 PM   #7
Posts: n/a


Everything else aside a very interesting document. Did anything come of the "bright line rule" they proposed?

At the moment it does appear management firms in California who send out specs and chase assignments are operating on a knife edge (so far as they are vulnerable to a fit of backstabbing) and the only insurance they have against being sued for past commission is that writers/actors would damage relationships? Attaching to produce and refunding commission voluntarily is one way of ring-fencing earnings from action brought under the Talent Agency Act?

Anyway, it could only be assumed that you were warning people away because of the Labor Commission investigation -- or the "governmental action", as you spun it. In any event, I don't believe this report sustains the inferences you are making about Dauer's character or the suggestion of financial impropriety (where is THAT in the report?). You may know something more about the background to the dispute (I hadn't heard about Dauer until this thread), I have no idea. If you do facts would be more useful than innuendo.

I haven't checked back to find the passages you've quoted from and you're right I skipped some of the document. Appears the action is tit-for-tat and based on technical arguments rather than any actual impropriety. So far as the statements you cited are concerned, you don't need to be a legal expert to appreciate that three months later a Los Angeles Superior Court judge found no evidence to support the Labor Commission's ruling and that the Commission's conclusions about Dauer's testimony, which APPARENTLY "confirmed his culpability", therefore don't have their original weight. Hardly the foundation of a "fundamental" attack on a person's character.

See article I linked to, "Dauer wins rep battle in court".

If this manager had lied to overstate his role in advancing his client's career I would understand your problem, but it appears that -- if anything -- the opposite was true. I can't see why a prospective client would hold modesty against a manager, even if it was on the record and self-serving (self-serving to the extent that had he handed Behr victory on a plate, the majority of managers in California could have been out of a job).

You do appear to be reading the report in a vacuum.

VERY interesting though and well worth posting (just not to this end, I don't think). If this wasn't filed away here under this obscure heading I'm sure others would be putting in.

Non of this is really relevant to the original Q but it's certainly a hot topic. Perhaps a mod could rename the thread to "Managers vs. The Talent Agency Act", or something more relevant? Considering this case happened over three years ago, it would be interesting to get feedback from managers on whether they think the present status quo is going to continue unabated.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker