# Gary Fong talks about lawsuit



## Trever1t (Jul 25, 2012)

Anyone seen this?


Wedding Photographer Who Did A Great Job Threatened with 300k Lawsuit - YouTube


----------



## CCericola (Jul 25, 2012)

Yeah. I still think that the lawyer shot himself in the foot with that letter. Imagine if the name of the firm got out!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 25, 2012)

Fong might be accurate on several points, but clearly he is unfamiliar with UPL...


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 25, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Fong might be accurate on several points, but clearly he is unfamiliar with UPL...



You mean, because Fong is offering his opinion in the video? I don't think that rises to the level of legal advice, implied or otherwise, and certainly isn't the practice of law.


----------



## CCericola (Jul 25, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Fong might be accurate on several points, but clearly he is unfamiliar with UPL...



I had to look up the acronym. Do you mean Fong was violating UPL or the lawyer?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 25, 2012)

When Fong applies his opinion to specific circumstances, he is offering legal advice. This is kind of what the definition of legal advice is.

---

the lawyer is probably committing barratry. If I were the defendant, I'd march a copy of that letter to the State Barr Association and file a complaint.

DISCLAIMER: ALL PROCEEDING AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS CONJECTURE ONLY, AND ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. THESE COMMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT POSESS ANY LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM INTERNET FORUMS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.


----------



## CCericola (Jul 25, 2012)

Ehhh. I think you are being nit picky. I read the UPL for Washington State (because I don't know where Fong lives and this whole debacle is in WA) and I don't think he was providing legal services. Comparing what we post on here vs what Fong talked about we would all be guilty of UPL.


----------



## KmH (Jul 25, 2012)

From what little I listened to, there is no law suit yet, just a bunch of threats to file a suit.

I sounds more like something someone posing as an attorney would write, than what a competent attorney would write.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 25, 2012)

I agree. All the stuff about how he's going to ruin his livelihood and take his home sounds like one too many episodes of The Good Wife.

If this is the case, casual UPL in most cases won't land you in jail, but impersonating an officer of the court will.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 25, 2012)

CCericola said:


> Ehhh. I think you are being nit picky. I read the UPL for Washington State (because I don't know where Fong lives and this whole debacle is in WA) and I don't think he was providing legal services. Comparing what we post on here vs what Fong talked about we would all be guilty of UPL.



Me? Nit Picky? No, no. Not me!



> (a)  General Definition:  The practice of law is the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of another entity or person(s) which require the knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law.


Washington State Courts - Court Rules

However, it is exceedingly unlikely that there would be any repercussions as result, provided that there are no damages as a result of any misinformation.

DISCLAIMER: ALL PROCEEDING AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS CONJECTURE ONLY, AND ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. THESE COMMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT POSESS ANY LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM INTERNET FORUMS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.


----------



## tbc (Jul 25, 2012)

I really hope to see those images, I think if Fong said those are great images, I will not be too bad. Poor photographer;(


----------



## amolitor (Jul 26, 2012)

No way that letter was written by a lawyer. Not even a bad one. That's a sub-literate fool who can't even fake "lawyerese".


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 26, 2012)

I think there is not any country on this planet where a serious attorney could afford writing such a letter without ruining the outcome of anysort of trial for himself.

This is just a letter with lots of threats, as if someone was very desperate to get money. I would either ignore him, or send someone over 

Oh, and without a contract, no one will be able to find out what the photographer actually promised  .. not having a contract here is a good thing ...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> Oh, and without a contract, no one will be able to find out what the photographer actually promised  .. not having a contract here is a good thing ...



Exactly, so all you have is what was paid verses what was delivered. If the couple posted 1000+ photos to their liking on facebook, and the photographer's yield was 25%, that means each image was billed out as less than a buck! Even if only the photos posted to facebook was all that was delivered, then each photo was worth only about four bucks.

So unless none of the images were representative of the bride, groom and guests - like he went off and took pictures of a bunch of ducks or something, the images must have some value.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

See, this is precisely why I have a carefully written contract, and one that states I have the final say on the creative design and execution of my images. It also states that upon signing the contract, the client agrees that they are familiar with my portfolio and design style! If I received a letter like that from some ****tard wannabe lawyer, it would be a struggle not to take my $18,800 out on his face...with my boot.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 26, 2012)




----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> It also states that upon signing the contract, the client agrees that they are familiar with my portfolio and design style!



**** that can of worms! The only thing that the client should sign to is that he or she understands the terms of payment and delivery, terms of refund or lack there of. I would never ever under any circumstance contractually obligate myself to anything remotely looking like "quality of goods".

I'd keep your portfolio far away from your contract. There is just no need for that clause. Just end it at creative control and execution.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> **** that can of worms! The only thing that the client should sign to is that he or she understands the terms of payment and delivery, terms of refund or lack there of. I would never ever under any circumstance contractually obligate myself to anything remotely looking like "quality of goods".
> 
> I'd keep your portfolio far away from your contract. There is just no need for that clause. Just end it at creative control and execution.



I put that clause in there after I had a client give me 2 months of PITA after she wasn't happy with the results of her wedding. Her defense was, "that's not the style I was looking for"... Even after we specifically covered design and style in two separate consults.. Eff that nonsense.

I don't have any interest in a "quality of goods" argument. Perhaps, I'll take a second look at those clauses.

Didn't mean to hijack. Sorry.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

I guess I can see your point. But I'd be very, very careful about introducing anything that would suggest a quality of goods guarantee.

I obviously don't know how your contract is written, nor does it much matter since I am not an attorney, but it's easy to unintentionally promise the opposite of what you've intended since contracts are inherently bidirectional.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 26, 2012)

Unpopular, why don't you let the working pros worry about their contracts? It's not even your issue, and you don't shoot retail photography, so why do you even care? 

I personally think that James has the right idea. A contract is designed to protect yourself and to insure a mutual understanding between you and the client. Documenting that they're familiar with your portfolio is just a fail safe against someone that says "These photos didn't turn out the way I would expect. I hate the style." if they're familiar with the portfolio, there's nothing they have against the photographer at that point.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

If the client never saw the portfolio, then the client would not have any expectation of any style, one way or another. By saying that the client was familiar with the portfolio and style of the photographer it is going to be much easier to prove that the client had an expectation which was not met.

Perhaps a clause which states "I understand that promotional materials provided by the photographer may not represent the actual style or quality of products and services delivered" would be a good idea, but having a clause that says "I saw the portfolio" doesn't likely provide any protection at all, it's just kind of out there.

DISCLAIMER: ALL PROCEEDING AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS CONJECTURE ONLY, AND ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. THESE COMMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT POSESS ANY LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM INTERNET FORUMS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 26, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> If the client never saw the portfolio, then the client would not have any expectation of any style, one way or another. By saying that the client was familiar with the portfolio and style of the photographer it is going to be much easier to prove that the client had an expectation which was not met.
> 
> Perhaps a clause which states "I understand that promotional materials provided by the photographer may not represent the actual style or quality of products and services delivered" would be a good idea, but having a clause that says "I saw the portfolio" doesn't likely provide any protection at all, it's just kind of out there.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: ALL PROCEEDING AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS CONJECTURE ONLY, AND ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. THESE COMMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT POSESS ANY LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM INTERNET FORUMS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.



I am sure you know all of that because you are both a working photographer and a lawyer. 

Cool story.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

Well. I admit that I am not an attorney, but I have some business experience in advertising ... not much, but some.

So aside from questioning my authority, to which I'll be the first to admit I have none, what exactly is the problem you're seeing in what I wrote?

I just do not see at all how simply saying "the client is familiar with my portfolio and style" does anything to protect you. If the client's expectations were met, then this would be a non-issue. If the client's expectations were not met, this contract may serve as a nice little document that says that they had expectations in the first place.

DISCLAIMER: ALL PROCEEDING AND PREVIOUS COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS CONJECTURE ONLY, AND ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. THESE COMMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT POSESS ANY LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM INTERNET FORUMS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 26, 2012)

i see it as if you put in saying the client is familiar with your portfolio you could present your portfolio and the wedding photos to the judge and say "have a look for yoruself. the quality is consistant with the work i do, is consistant with the work the client viewed when the contract was signed, i provided what was requested".


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

12sndsgood said:
			
		

> i see it as if you put in saying the client is familiar with your portfolio you could present your portfolio and the wedding photos to the judge and say "have a look for yoruself. the quality is consistant with the work i do, is consistant with the work the client viewed when the contract was signed, i provided what was requested".



That's exactly what I had in mind. Although, unless something just crazy happens, I'll never have to see a judge. As an additional line of protection, my insurance policy covers $1M worth of "errors and omissions." Crossing my fingers I never have an experience like the OP's link refers to...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

If I were to guess, the problem is more likely to arise when there is a discrepancy between promotional materials and delivered products. Otherwise what expectations can you expect? I mean, there probably are some reasonable expectations, like your likeness being represented in a portrait, but beyond that?

James - you may want to discuss this with your attorney, changing it to acknowledging that not only they are familiar with the portfolio, but also that you do not necessarily guarantee similar quality or style in the products you deliver.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> If I were to guess, the problem is more likely to arise when there is a discrepancy between promotional materials and delivered products. Otherwise what expectations can you expect? I mean, there probably are some reasonable expectations, like your likeness being represented in a portrait, but beyond that?
> 
> James - you may want to discuss this with your attorney, changing it to acknowledging that not only they are familiar with the portfolio, but also that you do not necessarily guarantee similar quality or style in the products you deliver.



That's what it says, in similar words. And thanks!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 26, 2012)

oh ok. I was confused then


----------

