From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin
Connecticut Supreme Court
247 Conn. 48 (1998)
Jeannie Leitao and two others incorporated Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. (BHC) (plaintiff) to sell fitness-club franchises with a distinctive logo and equipment. BHC opened headquarters in Connecticut, where it licensed purchasers to use its concept and sold exclusive distributorships. A trademark issue prompted Leitao to contact the law firm Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin (Schatz) (defendant). Schatz partner Stanford Goldman worked with associate Jane Seidl but contracted out work to Ira Dansky, a lawyer not yet admitted to the Connecticut bar (collectively, defendants). Leitao told Goldman and Seidl that Leitao had recently applied for a trademark for “Beverly Hills Concepts” in Washington, D.C. Goldman incorrectly assumed BHC had a federally registered trademark such that it need not register as a “business opportunity” under the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act. Goldman said Schatz had franchising expertise and was well qualified to handle BHC’s legal matters and that Goldman would be personally involved in representing BHC. Instead, after visiting BHC’s headquarters and reviewing its licensing and distributorship agreements and promotional materials, Goldman turned the file over to Seidl and Dansky. Neither had franchising or business-opportunity expertise. Ultimately Goldman billed only two hours of work for BHC. Meanwhile, BHC requested guidelines for conducting sales pending its franchise registration, but Schatz failed to advise that BHC was violating the act by selling franchises without first registering with the state banking commissioner. Instead Goldman advised that whether BHC was selling business opportunities within the act’s meaning was a “gray area” of the law. Seidl began drafting BHC’s franchise documents and sent Goldman and Dansky copies of her work product without seeking supervision, assuming someone was reviewing her work. Eventually another associate told Seidl BHC needed to register. Schatz contacted BHC’s trademark attorney, who confirmed that BHC’s trademark application remained pending and that no federal registration had issued. Still, no one from Schatz informed BHC about the Connecticut registration requirements. Ultimately the state banking commissioner issued a final cease-and-desist order, finding BHC had repeatedly violated the act by selling unregistered business opportunities. BHC sued for malpractice. After the court awarded damages, the parties cross-appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeals to itself to decide.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.