The question has been frequently debated in the legal community: What is the difference between an attorney providing business consulting services or acting as legal counsel? The California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion on the concern in the context of the entertainment industry. Britton v. Riggs, B303446. Though issued "unpublished," the Britton decision offers insight and guidance on the business consultant/legal counsel dichotomy debate.

The plaintiff, California bar member Layne Britton, had worked in non-legal executive positions at CBS, as vice-president of business affairs at NBC Entertainment and executive vice-president of business operations for the now-defunct United Paramount Network. However, during his career he didn't work at a law-firm, as a solo attorney or as a litigation attorney.

In 1998, Conrad Riggs, principal of the production company, Cloudbreak, joined with producer Mark Burnett to create reality TV shows that included the highly successful Survivor, which began airing on CBS in 2000. That year, Riggs asked Britton for advice on CBS's position on what percentage Burnett should receive from the TV show's advertising income. Later, after Burnett and CBS began negotiations over Survivor season renewals, the Irell & Manella firm served as counsel to Burnett and offered legal advice to Riggs, who explained that Britton nevertheless "offered to help [Riggs] with the renegotiation instead of [Riggs] hiring … another lawyer." When Burnett, Riggs and CBS were unable to finalize the deal, the parties proceeded to arbitration, with Britton continuing to offer advice to Riggs. Britton also work with Burnett and Riggs to create and pitch other TV show projects.