Not the Wolf of Wall Street Sequel Leonardo DiCaprio Was Expecting [e273]

July 6, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about why Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t done with his work on the Wolf of Wall Street and also discuss the recent Yelp decision that businesses should be excited about.


NASIR: Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist to that business news.
My name is Nasir Pasha.
MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.
NASIR: Why do you always laugh at me at every intro?
MATT: You always pause at a different spot. I don’t know.
NASIR: It’s for dramatic effect.
MATT: I notice it and no one else probably does.
NASIR: Yeah. No, you’re probably right.
MATT: So, there’s a story that’s been popping up and I think the actual story, I just did a quick Google search on this because I was actually trying to find out when the case initiated, 90 percent – maybe 95 percent – of the stories are about this part with Leonardo DiCaprio having to testify in this case which is such a minor part. To me, that’s just really, like, not news at all in the grand scheme of things with the actual substance of the case.
Let me get to the backstory here.
I think it was filed in 2014, right? Yeah, 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Andrew Greene. If you’re really into the Wolf of Wall Street, you might know who that is. Basically, he had a bunch of causes of action – libel, right to privacy, defamation, things like that or I guess the libel – basically saying the character of PJ Byrne, the actor in the Wolf of Wall Street, was a portrayal of him – him being Andrew Greene – and he was portrayed very poorly, I think. Let’s see – portrayed as a criminal, a drug user, and a degenerate through this character in the movie. Naturally, he files this complaint against who – the director?
NASIR: Yeah, or actually a bunch – not only Paramount, the director – let’s see.
MATT: Red Granite Pictures, some other entities.
NASIR: Appian Way LLC.
MATT: See, basically, he’s saying, “his character in this movie, it was supposed to be me and it was portrayed in a disadvantageous way and so I’m going to sue you.” I think, initially, it was for $50 million. Now, I think it’s around $25 million and it’s probably because some of the claims got kicked out. But that’s kind of where we’re at right now before we get into the Leo aspect of it.
NASIR: Yeah. If you guys have seen the movie, honestly, I doubt if you will remember who this guy is because I had to pull him up. I mean, he’s definitely a character in the film but he’s not a very memorable character.
NASIR: You know who I’m talking about, right? You’ve seen the film, right?
MATT: I watched a brief little clip. I think probably the most memorable part – well, one of the most memorable parts – that he’s in is when I think he’s the one – or at least one of the people – that’s involved, remember when they paid that woman to shave her head for $10,000?
NASIR: Oh, okay, yeah.
MATT: He was one of or maybe the only person that was the one shaving her head which he says never happened. What’s his name? Jordan… Jordan Belfort, the main character. You know, he says all this stuff happened. I’m sure it’s somewhat exaggerated but he said that the head-shaving thing happened. I think that’d be something that’d be easy to prove, right?
NASIR: Yeah, I mean, you would think, but bottom-line is, okay, right now, I guess he’s an investment banker. He claims he wasn’t or is not drug-addicted or misogynistic, “an obnoxious sleazeball” that he says Scorsese and Paramount Pictures basically framed him to be.
MATT: Yeah. So, he’s not happy about that. Probably also not happy about the fact that I’m sure he has a lot less money than he used to. So, naturally, he’s going to… You know, you see this movie, I’m sure he thinks, “Wow, it brings a lot of money, how can I profit off of this? I’m going to file this lawsuit claiming that they ripped off me and did so in a bad light.” That’s where things started in February 2014. A bunch of the claims got dismissed September of 2015, I believe, but the one that didn’t was libel and so, now, that is where we’re at today and this is the big story or this is, like I said, 90 percent of all the articles that are posted about Leonardo DiCaprio. Despite his attorney’s best attempts, he’s being forced to testify in this case. The reasons are a little bit flimsy, I think. You know, they’re saying that, obviously, he didn’t write the movie, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, the only part he had in the movie was just acting, right?
NASIR: Yeah, I think he’s actually a producer too and that’s part of the reason why the plaintiffs were wanting, you know, were justifying his involvement and this is a common tactic – the plaintiffs in this case or the plaintiff or their attorneys, they may have no real need for the deposition itself but it may be strategic because they know that, okay, you depose this famous actor that is obviously busy, he’s going to be pissed off that’s getting wrapped up in this lawsuit that he was just barely involved in making. He just did the acting and maybe produced it but he didn’t write the script or anything like that.
MATT: Right.
NASIR: And he definitely didn’t have any intention to defame anyone and he also didn’t play the actor of Andrew Greene either. So, he may put some tremendous pressure on Paramount that I’m sure Paramount wants to maybe use Leonardio DiCaprio in another movie in the future and I’m sure, as well as these other entities named, it may force them to settle. And so, it’s a very common tactic and, obviously, you can see how it’s made big news – the fact that he has to appear on a deposition.
ATT: Yeah, the plaintiff’s arguing that he’s a necessary party to testify because he met with the director and the producer and screenwriter in the script development process to discuss scenes and revisions. Scorsese and the screenwriter have already given their depositions. But, to me, that’s such a weak argument. Leonardo DiCaprio is going to meet with these three people and that somehow he’s going to focus on this one minute character that nobody even remembers from the movie, basically. I mean, what I really enjoyed about this is the plaintiff’s lawyers even offered to meet Leonardo in Los Angeles to accommodate his busy schedule. To me, it’s almost just like they want to meet him in person and be in the same room with him for a day – that’s how that comes off.
NASIR: In lieu of a deposition, they’re willing to get a signed autograph or a signed photograph.
MATT: He can be so smug, too. Like, you know that’s what he’s going to be like in this deposition because I don’t think he’s going to have much that’s going to benefit the plaintiff but it looks like they’re going to happen.
NASIR: We don’t know exactly but, yeah, there may be something we don’t know but you’re probably right. And so, what’s interesting about this case and why we can kind of take about the law a little bit is defamation in general. To kind of break that down, we’ve talked about it in the past and we’ll test this as well in the sense that we’ve talked about it in the context of Yelp and these bad reviews and negative reviews that may be defamatory. One of the elements of a defamatory statement, it has to be of and concerning the plaintiff. You have to actually prove that that defamatory statement is about you. And so, one of the legal issues that was brought up very early in the case which Matt alluded to in the motion to dismiss were most of the cases, I think there’s only two causes of action, I think, but the only one that was left standing was the libel or the defamation. The issue was, well, this is a movie. Is it really of and concerning this Andrew Greene or not? Because I’m sure you guys have seen this, you’ll see at the end of a movie where it’ll say something like “These are all fictional characters and anything that resembles a real-life character is mere coincidence” or some stupid disclaimer like that and I call it stupid because, in reality, that in itself isn’t really going to save you all of a sudden from a defamatory lawsuit just because you put in this disclaimer at the end that, okay, even though this looks real and we made it seem like it’s real, it’s not really real. And so, at this point, the judge said that, “well, this question of whether or not this movie and this character is ‘of and concerning the plaintiff’ or ‘of and concerning Andrew Greene’ is a question for the jury.” It’s not a question of law. And so, it depends upon whether or not a jury thinks that it’s of and concerning Andrew Greene.
MATT: Right. So, two things here, one you just hit on it. This isn’t saying that it is of and concerning. I mean, this is the motion to dismiss. So, whether they allege sufficient facts to demonstrate this of and concerning element. And so, I mean, kind of the way to look at it is whether a reasonable person could look at it and see some sort of connection. I mean, it’s a very broad way of putting it but that’s kind of what we’re looking at and whether that connection is enough. Whether a reasonable person viewing the allegedly defamatory work would understand that the character portrayed in the work was in fact, in this case, Andrew Greene acting as described. So, basically, if someone watched the movie, would they be able to figure out that this person is supposed to be him if it was? I mean, that’s what it really boils down to. I like how the judge put it in that knowing the real person would have no difficulty linking the two, superficial similarities are insufficient.
NASIR: Yeah, and I think, if they meet all the other elements and that’s the only issue, it’s kind of questionable because the actor was picked because he looked similar to the real Andrew Greene and that’s who he played. That’s who he was supposed to be. Even though this is supposedly a fictional character, everyone knows it’s not really. And so, in the past, there is some favorable case law in the sense that, when you’re parodying something and so forth and creating these kind of fictional movies based upon real-life events, there’s some leeway and the Wolf of Wall Street, obviously, it seems exaggerated and they also make it seem and how it was marketed is as if this is how things happened.
MATT: Yeah.
NASIR: So, I don’t know.
MATT: Jordan Belfort had to be involved in the making of this movie, right? I mean, that would be the obvious person that would bring a lawsuit. I mean, he seems, in the interview I saw, it seemed like he is in favor of the movie – this is after it came out. He wasn’t sued individually so that’s why, I mean, I don’t know, maybe he wasn’t involved at all. They had to somehow get the story from somewhere.
NASIR: Yeah, if I recall correctly, Jordan Belfort actually wrote a book called Wolf of Wall Street. And so, even though he was charged with defrauding investors for more than $200 million, it seems as though he was able to make $100 million – well, he’s making $100 million this year, apparently, this was back in 2014 but I’m pretty sure he made money on the movie as well in selling the script.
MATT: It’s interesting that he’s not being named as a defendant in this lawsuit then. Maybe he sold the script to whoever and then they are the ones that are being sued.
NASIR: Okay. So, there’s one report that he got about $1 million to sell the movie rights, but it is based upon his memoir. So, you’re right. In theory, it’s like, if it’s based upon his memoirs and it was really about him and it was not true, then you’re right. It seems like he should have been included as a defendant as well.
MATT: In this case, obviously, like you said, the story was in the news this past week, it was all stuff about Leonardo DiCaprio. He’s not a party to the lawsuit. He was in unwilling participant or unwilling person that’s just involved in terms of testifying. But what about there was another case that was decided this past week that was kind of the opposite in that it was a defamation lawsuit. A business owner – actually, I think it was an attorney or a law firm versus a disgruntled customer – and a third party really wanted to be involved – or yeah it was involved – it wanted to assert its rights and that’s Yelp which we haven’t talked about in a while. Real quick rundown of what happened here, disgruntled customer leaves this negative defamatory review on Yelp under their real name and also under a pseudonym. Eventually, the law firm, the attorney, they sue this individual. They sue her for defamation. Defendant never responds. They get a default judgment. They actually sued for damages. I think it was quite a bit. One of the things they also sued which was for requiring or ordering Yelp to remove the reviews and Yelp didn’t want to do that. And so, instead of just complying with this one simple request, Yelp fought it based on quite a few grounds, actually.
NASIR: Yeah, First Amendment protections and we’ve talked about this many times – the statutory protections that these types of online companies have which is under the Communications Decency Act. I think that’s commonly referred to as a CDA. What’s interesting, there might have been some other defenses as well but, ultimately, it was actually a pretty favorable decision on behalf of those that are advocates of being able to fight against these negative defamatory reviews that are completely not true. And the idea is, “So what if you get a judgment against the defendant but that review is still out there and it’s on Yelp? How do you remove it?” It was a default judgment. So, in order to enforce a default judgment against the defendant to make them remove the review, it’s a little bit more difficult rather than just going straight to Yelp and saying, “hey, this is a defamatory statement, you must remove it.” It’s interesting because Yelp in this case was not a party and they just kind of inserted themselves in there because, okay, all of a sudden, there’s an injunction that they have to comply with. And so, they appealed accordingly and basically told the judge, “Look, we are immune from liability under the CDA, this violates our First Amendment rights, et cetera,” and the judges agreed that he basically said – was it a he or a she? I’m sorry – the court basically said that the CDA does not apply because this is an injunction. There’s no actual liability that applies here. Therefore, CDA doesn’t apply and you have to comply with the order.
MATT: And the appellate court did send it back to trial court just for kind of a distinction on the judgment. The original judgment was Yelp had to take down the reviews that this person posted and subsequent posts from her or anyone else – I think that was the exact way it was worded. Basically, the appellate court said it was a little bit overbroad. You can require her to remove the reviews that she’d already posted. But, in terms of future reviews, that’s an overbroad restraint on speech which, I mean…
NASIR: That makes sense.
MATT: Yeah, I mean, it does. But, if she goes back and posts the exact same thing?
NASIR: Yeah.
MATT: To me, if it stems from the same incident, then what’s the difference? I get it but, at the same time, it’s a little bit…
NASIR: Yeah, but a court has to be careful and we’ve talked about this.
MATT: You can’t prevent her from free speech forever so I get that aspect of it.
NASIR: Yeah, exactly, and that’s called prior restraint and courts are very reluctant to kind of have any kind of order that prevents speech from happening in the first place. They’d rather the speech to occur and, if it’s something that is not permitted to punish that speech in itself. In this case, yeah, like I said, it makes sense. This case, though, is a nice blueprint for others that are seeking kind of restitution or some kind of remedy to these kind of defamatory statements online because, first of all, everyone knows, if you sued Yelp for liability for defamation, you would lose and that’s what CDA is for. That’s what the Communications Decency Act gives them immunity to. But, if you’re able to identify the defendant and, by the way, I mean, even if you’re not able to identify, we’ve found ways to figure that out as well. But, if you sue somebody for defamation and you win – whether default judgment or otherwise, at least in California – it seems as though Yelp will have to comply. Now, whether this applies in every single case or not across the nation and whether or not this get appealed but I think it was a good decision. The only logic that Yelp had which possibly has some viable claims is that they say, well, by imposing the injunction and if we do not comply, we’ll be liable. And so, therefore, the CDA does apply because we have immunity to that liability. And so, that’s a clever argument but, in this case, the judge didn’t buy it.
MATT: I think, overall, it’s a favorable decision for businesses and business owners which is pretty rare in terms of dealing with Yelp. But, I guess, most of the people that have been unsuccessful have sued Yelp directly, right? I mean, for the most part.
NASIR: Yeah, and those cases suing Yelp directly are always going to fail. That CDA is a federal statute.
MATT: Yeah, there was one case that looked promising. It was some sort of procedural issue they screwed up on or I can’t recall.
NASIR: Well, when I first saw this case, I was questioning it because the headline said that CDA did not apply. We’ve talked about it in the past that, if Yelp involved themselves too much in the review and screening of these reviews then they could be waiving their liability or their immunity to this liability and we’ve talked about how Yelp’s algorithm, how that works. And so, they’ve obviously tested the waters to only involve themselves to the extent that they can and that’s why they depend upon this automatic filtering. But. If they were to go in there and start removing reviews that they didn’t like and whatsoever then they may open themselves up to liability. But, right now, so long as the review complies with their terms of service and it’s filtered using some stupid algorithm that they think is great, then they’ve been able to remain immune to the liability.
MATT: Careful what you say.
NASIR: Luckily, stupid is definitely an opinion. Well, it’s pretty much fact, let’s just say that.
MATT: Fair enough.
NASIR: All right. Well, I think that’s it for today. Nice Wolf of Wall Street tied with Yelp.
MATT: Yeah.
NASIR: I didn’t think those would go together but they do.
MATT: All right. Well, keep it sound and keep it smart.


The Podcast Where Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub cover business in the news with their legal twist and answer business legal questions that you the listener can send it to

Get Business Legal Updates

Please provide your full name.
Please provide a valid email address.
We respect your privacy, and we will never share your information. Unsubscribe at any time.

Related Publications

May 6, 2024
May 6, 2024
May 6, 2024
May 6, 2024

Introduction In the intricate world of investment structures, the myriad of templates, guidelines, and conventional wisdom available to investors and companies can often seem like an overbearing maze. Yet, when we strip away the layers of complexity, a fundamental truth emerges: it all boils down to the core conceptual factors driving the decisions. Imagine a…

January 21, 2024
January 5, 2024
December 25, 2023

In this episode, Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub explore the legal implications of Artificial Intelligence in the business world. They delve into the most talked-about issue of 2023: AI and its impact on the legal landscape. Although AI isn’t necessarily a new topic, it has many unanswered questions in the legal world. Nasir and Matt…

November 21, 2023
Legally Sound Smart Business cover art

Legally Sound Smart Business

A business podcast with a legal twist

Legally Sound Smart Business is a podcast by Pasha Law PC covering different topics in business advice and news with a legal twist with attorneys Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub.
Apple Podcast badge
Google Podcast badge
Spotify Podcast badge

Latest Episodes

November 21, 2023

In this episode, Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub explore the legal implications of Artificial Intelligence in the business world. They delve into the most talked-about issue of 2023: AI and its impact on the legal landscape. Although AI isn’t necessarily a new topic, it has many unanswered questions in the legal world. Nasir and Matt…

July 12, 2023

In this episode, Attorney Nasir Pasha and Attorney Matt Staub delve deep into the complexities of mass layoffs and offer valuable insights, real-life examples, and practical advice to employers grappling with the aftermath of such challenging situations. Nasir and Matt emphasize the critical importance of effective communication when executing mass layoffs. They stress the need…

January 9, 2023

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe, businesses scrambled to adapt to the new reality it presented. In this blog post, we dive into the case of Goldman Sachs, a financial services giant, to examine their response to the crisis and the lessons other businesses can learn from their return-to-office strategy. From prioritizing employee…

October 28, 2022

Full Podcast Transcript NASIR: Finally, my two favorite worlds have collided – both the law and the chess – right here at Memorial Park in Houston, Texas. Windy day. We have some background noise – ambient noise. What are the two worlds that collided? Well, Hans Neimann has sued Magnus Carlsen for defamation in one…

September 26, 2022

Through a five-round championship bout, Matt travels to Texas from California to determine which state is better for business. Will it be a knockout with a clear winner or will it go to the scorecards?

July 7, 2022

Whether you are buying or selling a business, the transaction goes through the same steps. However, they are viewed from different perspectives. Sellers may not want to fully disclose all the blind spots while Buyers will want otherwise. Nasir and Matt battle it out in this Buyer vs. Seller to determine who has the advantage!…

May 12, 2022

When it comes to Restrictive Covenants, employers are fighting to keep their company safe while employees may use them to their advantage. Keep listening to find out if the Employer or the Employee wins this battle. Round 1: Trade Secrets A company’s trade secrets encompass a whole range of information and are one of the…

February 14, 2022

The Supreme Court rejected the nation’s vaccine mandate. Businesses with 100 or more employees are NOT required to have their employees vaccinated or go through weekly testings. However, this policy remains in effect for health care facilities. In this episode of Legally Sound | Smart Business, the team sat down to discuss their thoughts on this ruling.

December 1, 2021

In this episode of Legally Sound | Smart Business by Pasha Law PC, Nasir and Matt cover the Business of Healthcare. There is more to the healthcare industry than just doctors and nurses. Many Americans have health insurance to cover their yearly needs, but most Americans are not aware of what really goes on behind…

October 12, 2021

In our latest episode, Nasir and Matt are covering the legal issues on Social Media. The average person spends most of their day on social media, whether they are scrolling for hours or publishing their own content. However, just because you publish your own content on Instagram does not equate to you owning that image….

September 28, 2021

What is a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and when do I need one? In this episode, Nasir and Matt shares why you need to use Non-Disclosure Agreements, basic facts about NDA’s, and discuss about the infamous Jenner-Woods story. Having the right Non-Disclosure Agreement in place not only protects you and your business, but it also makes the…

June 16, 2021

Covered in this episode of Legally Sound Smart Business are some typical business mistakes blunders small businesses often make and how to avoid them. Blunder #1: Copying and pasting agreements It may sound like a good idea at the time, but this blunder comes with hidden pitfalls. Having an attorney draft terms that are specific…

February 4, 2021

How you terminate an employee can make the difference between a graceful transition to avoidable negative outcomes like a dramatic exit or even a lawsuit. We gathered a panel of experts and asked them – is there a “right way” to fire an employee? We would like to thank our guests for this episode: Amr…

December 2, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned nearly every aspect of life on its head, and that certainly holds true for the business world. In this episode, Matt and Nasir explain how the early days of the pandemic felt like the Wild West and how the shifting legal playing field left a lot open to interpretation and…

November 16, 2020

After plenty of ups and downs, our buyer has finally closed on the purchase of their business. While we’re marking this down in the ‘wins’ column, it never hurts to review the game tape. In this final episode, our hosts, Matt Staub and Nasir Pasha, return to the deal almost a year later to reflect…

September 15, 2020

The ink is drying on the signature line and things are looking great for our buyer. After so much hard work, the finish line is in sight and the cheering within ear shot.   Though the landlord is still serving friction, things seem safe to move forward and for now, our buyer will be keeping…

July 31, 2020

Though things are coming along well, the journey would not be interesting if it was purely smooth sailing. After our buyer opens escrow, they are forced to push the closing date back when suddenly a letter from an attorney was received claiming the business, we are buying has a trade mark on the name!  Now…

June 12, 2020

With frustration at an all-time high and professionalism at an all-time low, our friend the Buyer has “had it” with the Seller and quite frankly their lack of knowledge. At present our Buyer is rightfully concerned that the latest misstep from our loose-lipped Seller will threaten not only the entire operation of the businesses but…

May 11, 2020

As we go deeper into the buying process, we start to uncover more challenges from our seller and encounter some of the wrenches they are tossing our way. When we last left off in episode three our team was knee deep in due diligence for our buyer, had already penned and signed the Letter of…

April 4, 2020

One word–interloper! When a new mysterious broker enters the transaction and starts to kick up dust, Nasir and Matt take the reins. The seller signed off on the letter of intent (see episode 2), yet this “business broker” serves only friction and challenges by refusing to send financials, whilst demanding more of a firm commitment…

April 4, 2020

Just as most stories and deals start out, everyone is optimistic, idealistic and full of hope for clear skies. It’s a perfect outlook with a perfect setup for the ups and downs yet to come. Peek further behind the curtain and into the first steps of buying a business: the letter of intent. After the…

April 4, 2020

When a savvy buyer hears opportunity knocking to purchase a prime positioned business, she decides not to go it alone and taps in the professionals to help navigate what could potentially be a fruitful acquisition. “Behind the Buy” is a truly rare and exclusive peak into the actual process, dangers, pitfalls and achievements, that can…

August 7, 2019

GrubHub is subject to two “matters of controversy” that have likely become common knowledge to business owners: “fake” orders and unfriendly microsites.

May 28, 2019

In this podcast episode, Matt and Nasir breakdown the legal issues of the subscription industry’s business on the internet. Resources A good 50-state survey for data breach notifications as of July 2018. California Auto-Renewal Law (July 2018) Privacy Policies Law by State Why Users of Ashley Madison May Not Sue for Data Breach [e210] Ultimate…

March 12, 2019

In recording this episode’s topic on the business buying process, Matt’s metaphor, in comparing the process to getting married probably went too far, but they do resemble one another. Listen to the episode for legal advice on buying a business.

December 3, 2018

Nasir and Matt return to discuss the different options available to companies looking to raise funds through general solicitation and crowdfunding. They discuss the rules associated with the various offerings under SEC regulations and state laws, as well as more informal arrangements. The two also discuss the intriguing story about a couple who raised over…

July 24, 2018

Flight Sim Labs, a software add-on creator for flight simulators, stepped into a PR disaster and possibly some substantial legal issues when it allegedly included a Trojan horse of sorts as malware to combat pirating of its $100 Airbus A320 software. The hidden test.exe file triggered anti-virus software for good reason as it was actually…

April 17, 2018

Attorneys Matt Staub and Nasir Pasha examine Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings about the state of Facebook. The two also discuss Cambridge Analytica and the series of events that led to the congressional hearings, the former and current versions of Facebook’s Terms of Service, and how businesses should be handling data privacy. Full Podcast Transcript NASIR:…

March 10, 2018

The Trump presidency has led to a major increase in ICE immigration enforcement. It’s critical for business owners to both comply with and know their rights when it comes to an ICE audit or raid. Nasir, Matt, and Pasha Law attorney Karen McConville discuss how businesses can prepare for potential ICE action and how to…

February 5, 2018

New years always bring new laws. Effective January 1, 2018, California has made general contractors jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, and other benefit payments of a subcontractor. Nasir and Matt discuss who the new law applies to and how this affects all tiers in the general contractor-subcontractor relationship. Click here to learn…

January 2, 2018

With a seemingly endless amount of new mattress options becoming available, it is unsurprising that the market has become increasingly aggressive. As companies invest in more innovative solutions to get in front of customers, review sites, blogs and YouTube videos have moved to the forefront of how customers are deciding on their mattresses and how…

December 7, 2017

In recent months explosive amounts of high profile allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and varying acts of inappropriate behavior have transcended every sector of our professional world. With a deluge from Hollywood and politics, and the private workforce, accusations have inundated our feeds and mass media. This harassment watershed has not only been felt within…

November 16, 2017

If you are not familiar with the EB-5 program started in 1990 to give green cards to certain qualified investors in the United States, then you may not have been alone a few years ago. Currently, the EB-5 program has since exploded since its inception and now hits its quotas consistently each year. The program…

October 10, 2017

Government requests come in multiple forms. They can come in as requests for client information or even in the form of investigating your company or your employees. Requests for Client Information General Rule to Follow Without understanding the nuances of criminal and constitutional law and having to cite Supreme Court cases, any government requests for…

August 24, 2017

Nasir and Matt suit up to talk about everything pertaining to employee dress codes. They discuss the Federal laws that govern many rules for employers, as well as state specific nuances in California and other states. The two also emphasize the difficulty in identifyingreligious expression in dress and appearance, how gender-related dress codes have evolved…

June 28, 2017

Nasir and Matt discuss the life cycle of a negative online review. They talk about how businesses should properly respond, how to determine if the review is defamatory, the options available to seek removal of the review, how to identify anonymous reviewers, whether businesses can require clients to agree not to write negative reviews, and…

June 7, 2017

On this episode of the Ultimate Legal Breakdown, Nasir and Mattbreak down social media marketing withguests Tyler Sickmeyer and Kyle Weberof Fidelitas Development. They first discuss contests and promotionsand talk about where social media promotions can go wrong,when businesses are actually running an illegal lottery, and the importance of a soundterms and conditions. Next, they…

April 3, 2017

On this episode of the Ultimate Legal Breakdown, Nasir and Matt go in depth with the subscription box business. They discuss where subscription box companies have gone wrong(4:30), the importance of a specifically tailored terms and conditions(6:30), how to structure return policies (11:45), product liability concerns (14:45),the offensive and defensive side of intellectual property (19:00),…

February 1, 2017

Nasir and Matt discuss the suit against Apple that resultedfrom a car crashed caused by the use of FaceTime while driving. They also discuss howforeseeable use of apps can increase liability for companies. Full Podcast Transcript NASIR: Hi and welcome to Legally Sound Smart Business! I’m Nasir Pasha. MATT: And I’m Matt Staub. Two attorneys…

January 5, 2017

The guys kick in the new year by first discussing Cinnabon’s portrayal of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia soon after her death, as well as other gaffes involving Prince and David Bowie. They alsotalk about right of publicity claims companies could be held liable for based on using someone’s name or likeness for commercial gain.

December 22, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the recent incidentat a Victoria’s Secret store where the store manager kicked out all black women after one black woman was caught shoplifting. They then each present dueling steps businesses should take when employees are accused of harassment.

December 8, 2016

Nasir and Matt return to talk about the different types of clients that may have outstanding invoices and how businesses can convert unpaid bills to getting paid.

November 10, 2016

After a long break, Nasir and Matt are back to discuss a Milwaukee frozen custard stand that is now revising it’s English only policy for employees. The guys also discuss how similar policies could be grounds for discrimination and what employers can do to revise their policies.

October 6, 2016

The guys discuss the new California law that allows actors to request the removal of their date of birth and birthdays on their IMDB page and why they think the law won’t last. They also discuss how age discrimination claims arise for business owner.

September 29, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the racial discrimination claims surroundingAirbnb and how it’s handled the situation. They also discuss some practical tips for businesses experiencing similar issues.

September 8, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss whyAmazon seller accounts are getting suspended and banned without notice and how business owners can rectify this situation through a Corrective Action Plan.

August 25, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about the accusations surroundingfashion giant Zararipping off the designs of independent artists like Tuesday Bassen and howsmaller companies can battle the industry giants.

August 18, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss Brave Software’s ad replacing technology that has caught the eye of almost every national newspaper and has a potential copyright infringement claim looming. They also welcome digital marketing expert Matt Michaelree to speak on the specifics of what Brave is attempting to do and whether it has the answers moving forward.

July 28, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Gretchen Carlson against Fox CEO Roger Ailes. They also talk aboutthe importance of sexual harassment training and properly handling such allegations in the office.

July 15, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about the changes at Starbucks that have led to many disgruntled employees and customers.

We represent businesses.
That’s all we do.

Oh, and we love it.

We love our work. We love reviewing that lease for your new location. We thrive on closing that acquisition that nearly fell through. We’re fulfilled when we structure a business to grow, raise capital, and be legally protected.

We focus on developing close relationships with our clients by being like business partners. A partner who provides essential, personalized, proactive legal support.

We do all of this without utilizing the traditional billable hour model. You pay for the value we bring, not the time spent on calls, emails, and meetings.

Our team is made up of attorneys and staff that share these values and we are retained by clients who want the same.

Pasha Law PC operates in the states of California, Illinois, New York, and Texas.

Meet Our Team

Fractional General Counsel Services

Pasha Law Select offers the expertise of a high-end general counsel legal team for every aspect of your business at a fixed monthly rate. Pasha Law Select is deliberately designed to allow our legal team to be proactive, to anticipate, and to be comprehensive in serving our clients. To be great lawyers, we need to know our clients. We can’t know our clients unless we represent a select number of clients in the long-term. This is Pasha Law Select.

Learn More