Suggestions
Gregg Ramer
Of Counsel at Paul Hastings
Gregg B. Ramer is an Of Counsel attorney at Paul Hastings, a prominent international law firm based in Los Angeles, California. He specializes in entertainment law, leveraging his extensive experience in the industry to provide legal services tailored to the needs of clients in this sector. Ramer has a notable background, having previously worked with prestigious firms like Loeb & Loeb before joining Paul Hastings.
Education and Background
- Juris Doctor (JD): Ramer earned his law degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, equipping him with a strong foundation in legal principles and practices.
Professional Experience
- Entertainment Law Expertise: Ramer has built a reputation as a highly experienced entertainment attorney, focusing on various aspects of media and entertainment law. His work involves advising clients on legal matters related to film, television, and other media ventures.
- Recent Ventures: In September 2024, he launched his own entertainment law firm, Ramer Entertainment Law, aiming to cater to the specific needs of clients within the entertainment industry.23
Contact Information
Ramer's office is located at:
- Address: 1999 Avenue of the Stars, FL 27, Los Angeles, CA 90067
- Phone: (310) 620-5752
His professional profile can also be found on platforms like LinkedIn, where he highlights his career achievements and services offered.1
Highlights
LAWYERS AND THE SIDE-HUSTLE
Long ago, my father (a pretty successful lawyer) told me: Lawyering is service. You don't get rich in the service business. What you should shoot for is comfortable. Comfortable means that in any given year, you have a choice whether to take the family on a vacation or buy a really nice new car. And that you have enough in the bank so that you could pay the same day for anything you put on a credit card.
Pretty good stuff, and while I know plenty of lawyers who do pretty well, in fact, really well, for the most part (and I mean most) lawyers will never be client rich. Big firms can charge $2,000/hour for top lawyers; ask any lawyer if they'd be willing to pay that.
So one of the things not a lot of people talk about is the side-hustle, and it's far more ubiquitous than you might think. In order to supplement an otherwise 'merely' comfortable living, a fair number of lawyers will engage in some entrepreneurship and aggressive investing. Some go super-traditional, and buy some rental properties. Some are closet day-traders, playing the markets. Quite a few open businesses you wouldn't expect, from yoga studios to clothing/accessories, to home improvement to social media and tech ventures.
Economically, it usually makes sense, both to diversify your portfolio and expand what may be a limited source of income (albeit, lucrative and 'comfortable' by my father's definition of it). Sure, some fail, and that's the price of trying. But lawyers are better than most at recognizing and mitigating risk, so I would put them in the upper percentile of the successful side-hustle.
Psychologically, it may make even more sense. Lawyering is a stressful job, and while it can certainly feel rewarding (a grateful client here, a bonus there), as often as not it's a grind. A 'comfortable' grind, I grant you (okay, that sounds wrong, but I'm leaving it there), but a grind nonetheless. So some side-hustles are, setting money aside, a 'relief.' An exploration of other avenues and what-ifs. Larks. Feel-goods because they can bring a regular feeling of success that may otherwise be denied on a day-to-day basis. Or they can fill a need (I knew one judge who, in his off-time, beta-tested video games).
Side-hustles are everywhere, and are for most lawyers the only way they can afford other lawyers if they have to. But more importantly, they can provide much-needed relief. A breath of fresh air. A level beyond 'mere' 'comfort.' So I encourage it...to the extent it doesn't adversely affect your firm or clients, go forth, have fun, prosper.
MUCH ADO ABOUT SOMETHING - LOAN-OUTS
Some thoughts on the 'pending doom' awaiting tens of thousands in California, as the hapless Employment Development Department moves to destroy the tax-haven loan-out corporations employed (pun intended) by workers in the entertainment (and other) businesses.
Let's back up: for decades, many individuals have sought a tax advantage by creating a company and being 'employed' by it for tax purposes, with said company being 'engaged' in turn by studios (et al.) who need not make payroll contributions (which are the ostensible responsibility of the loan-out), for the win-win. Want a subtle piece of evidence? No responsible studio (et al.) will let talent use an LLC as a loan-out...it must be a classic corporation (S or C), or the jig is up.
First the bad news. This has been something that has been examined, scrutinized, analyzed, colonoscopied at the State and Federal levels for a long time. Every now and then, noise is made that loan-outs will be axed for all intents and purposes to deal with tax evasion, and yes, there are some rules that already exist in that regard. So far, they have generally been respected. Or tolerated. Or something. That MAY be ending, but we've heard these noises before. Part of the trigger in California is a massive budget shortfall, and the EDD may be going down this road in that light, making it more possible than usual that they may follow through in order to squeeze funds out of poor, suffering, incorporated actors, writers, directors and the like.
Now the better news. This is not likely to happen. As usual. The 'victims' of the governmental assault on, well, screwing the government (just a little, though), are not going to sit idly by. Guilds and unions, studios, advocates of individual rights...they're not gonna take it. And they aren't. The pushback is hard, and the leverage behind it is massive. The EDD could cause even more employment, people and productions out of state, and that would far outweigh the relative benefits of 'ignoring' the loan-out fiction, and in the end there is no way California will let that happen.
I don't know this to be true, but I strongly suspect that every now and then an eager beaver wakes up to all of this and says, "Hey, there's some money here! I'm the first genius to find it! Why have we been allowing this?" At which point someone more seasoned says "Shut up, stupid. This is how it works, and without it, we lose more."
Kind of reminds me of a film back in the day with a budget line-item of $50,000 for 'miscellaneous' that some low-level B.A. pointed at and proudly preened at saving the production some money. At which point, said B.A. was dressed down harshly by someone higher up who pointed out that the cast really needed their cocaine. "Shut up, stupid."
Consult your accountant or tax attorney for more detail, if you're having trouble sleeping. Or, if you never want to sleep again. Depends how this goes.
