Famed Century City entertainment litigator Bert Fields today issued this statement in response to some of the charges leveled by comedian Garry Shandling in his Pellicano trial testimony last week as well as the coverage of it by the Los Angeles Times. Fields defended Grey during Garry Shandling's conflict of interest lawsuit:
"I was appalled at the report on Gary Shandling’s testimony in the Los Angeles Times of March 17th.
"Firstly, Shandling’s allegations in his lawsuit against Brad Grey did not include any claim of forgery. A check of the Court file would have shown this. So would a call to me. Without making any such check, the Times article reported that Shandling claimed forgery and even compared Brad to David Begelman, a convicted forger.
Let me be clear. There was no forgery, and no forgery was claimed.
"Similarly, Shandling’s claim that Brad wouldn’t let him see his own contracts is absurd. It never happened.
"Shandling’s basic claim in his lawsuit was that Brad sold his own interest in certain television shows and in Brad’s own company. He did not sell Shandling’s interest in anything; but Shandling claimed he should have. To me, that claim made no legal sense. Yet it was the fundamental basis of his lawsuit.
"To measure the validity of that lawsuit, Shandling sued for $100 million and settled for only $4 million. The actual settlement agreement is available for anyone who wants to check. Although I felt confident about Brad’s winning the case, I considered this an excellent settlement.
"Brad Grey is one of the straightest shooters I’ve encountered in many years of involvement with the film business. In every one of his dealings that I have observed over the years, he’s been scrupulously honest and fair. He did not deserve Shandling’s bitter, self-serving and grossly inaccurate rant.
"As to Shandling, maybe there’s something to karma after all."
this is rich. is a character reference from Bert Fields on behalf of a client worth the paper it’s printed on? what a hypocrite. THIS is the guy hiring pellicano to dig dirt ILLEGALLY in the first place!
Comment by anon — March 17, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Also interesting that Fields doesn’t dispute Shandling’s testimony that “with Bert you get Pellicano” and “if Bert’s on the other side your phones are probably being tapped”. As close as an admission as we’ll ever get from Bert “I’ve never lost a case” Fields.
Comment by alsoanonymous — March 17, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
This man is a total creep.
Comment by Duke Theodore — March 17, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Bert just violated the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement which means Shandling can now sue Bertram for additional damages for divulging the amount that was paid. Good going Bert! You are now going to have to pay Shandling another $4 million for boasting about how little he settled for from Grey. Why would you do such a thing? My guess is because $4 million is not the right amount. I think Grey had to pay Shandling a lot more probably closer to $15 million. If $4 million was the actual amount you are in clear violation of the confidentiality terms. That means Garry can absolutely sue you for announcing the amount in public.
Comment by Anonymous — March 17, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
All you’re spinning is yourself, Bert. No one is buying what you’re selling anymore.
Comment by Paulie Sheldon — March 17, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Fields is completely wrong — Shandling was not giving a bitter, self-serving and grossly inaccurate rant. He was giving sworn testimony in court. It might be interesting to hear Mr. Fields’ sworn testimony about whether or not he knew that his private investigator was using wiretaps.
Comment by Perry Mason — March 17, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Fields is so petty that he even misspelled Garry’s name in his release.
A shanda fur die goyim!
Comment by Unindicted Co-conspirator — March 17, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Bert,
You willing to swear on oath to that? What was the Pelican’s role in your ops? How about contracts? Forget karma, are you willing to be cross-examined?
I think not.
Comment by P. Lee — March 17, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Simply put Garry stated his stuff under oath, when will Brad state these items under oath. In addition nothing Bert stated was in significant dispute with the major facts: (Grey -> Fields -> Pellicano) = Sleazy
Comment by nutjob — March 17, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Usually attorneys council silence during a litigation. But apparently Lawyer Fields can’t keep his mouth shut when the ego rules the mind over matters. Grey isn’t even on trial. Yet Lawyer Fields felt compelled to speak. Why? Lawyer Fields doth protest too much. Obviously Garry Shandling’s testimony is accurate. He has spoken too close to the truth so when you can’t kill the story, you assassinate the storyteller’s character instead.
Stranger is Fields’ lifting lines from old movies in defense of Grey. “Brad Grey is one of the straightest shooters I’ve encountered in many years of involvement with the film business. In every one of his dealings that I have observed over the years, he’s been scrupulously honest and fair.” It immediately brings to mind “The Manchurian Candidate’ — “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonder human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
So, Mr. Fields, why don’t you pass the time and play a little solitaire. If you’re gonna make like Berle and lift lines to spout for your clients, you should credit your sources– and join the WGA.
Comment by David C. — March 17, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
“Brad Grey is one of the straightest shooters I’ve encountered in many years of involvement with the film business. In every one of his dealings that I have observed over the years, he’s been scrupulously honest and fair.” — Bert Fields
“Anything worth having is worth cheating for.” — W.C. Fields
Which Fields has this case pegged? No contest. I wonder. I wonder. Ahhhhh yes, yes indeed.
Comment by Newtzapoop — March 18, 2008 @ 12:35 am
It’s funy that a scumbag like Bert Fields can spend a lifetime screwing people and now lecture Garry about Karma. Obviously karma kept you rich Bert.
Comment by Ernie Fields — March 18, 2008 @ 2:40 am
I’m just a layman, but couldn’t he have just broken the law with regard to trying to influence a jury and other potential witnesses? He is, after all, on the witness list. Maybe, some of you good attorneys could chime in here. Just sayin’…
Comment by Anonymous — March 18, 2008 @ 6:29 am
Watch for some rapid deal-making and another round of arrests with special guest stars from the karmic world of wiretapping and intimidation.
Comment by BenFranklin — March 18, 2008 @ 9:01 am