by Todd Lebowitz

Different Strokes: Be Careful With Choice of Law Clauses in IC Agreements

The phrase “Different strokes for different folks” originated in the 1960s and seems to have been popularized by Muhammad Ali. Describing his knock-out punches against Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, he said, “I got different strokes for different folks.”

In 1979, Ali appeared in the sitcom “Diff’rent Strokes,” which was probably named for the Ali quote and which was actually spelled that way and I can’t find anything that explains why. I guess when it comes to punctuation, different strokes for different folks?

Today’s post is a variation on that theme: Different states for different fates.

When drafting independent contractor agreements, choice of law matters. Choose carefully and thoughtfully. And remember three things:

First, state laws differ significantly on several subjects that might be relevant to your IC agreement — for when someone is considered an employee, for when non-competes can be enforced, for when non-solicitation agreements can be enforced, and for other terms that are likely to be in your contractor agreements. Don’t choose the law of a state that is less likely to enforce the clauses you want to include. If you can avoid California law for example, do yourself a favor and avoid California law.

Second, the state you choose needs to have some nexus to the parties or their relationship. Examples of a nexus that can justify use of a state’s law may be that one party is based there, or the work is being performed there, or (maybe) that one party is incorporated there. But there needs to be some connection.

Third, for worker classification disputes, the law of the state where the work is performed might apply anyway, since if a worker works in State A and the laws of State A would consider that person to be an employee, the parties cannot agree to contract out of the law of State A. But don’t concede so easily. Aim to apply the law of a favorable jurisdiction, even if there’s a chance that a court or arbitrator might disregard the choice of law clause in a classification dispute. Besides, there are going to be many other clauses in your agreement for which you’ll want the most favorable state law to apply.

For employment relationships, it is unlawful in some states (and unenforceable in others) to require application of the law of a state where the work is not performed, but it’s much less clear when and whether such laws apply to non-employment relationships.

The bottom line: Be strategic and thoughtful when inserting a choice of law provision in an independent contractor agreement. Depending on what law is applied to a particular issue or contract clause, the result and enforceability of that term may be different. Or diff’rent.

And the wrong choice of law could mean a knock-out punch for a clause you’d like to enforce.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

04.21.25

by Todd Lebowitz

Holy Bat Trap: Here’s How to Protect IP Created by Contractors

Two London police officers had to get creative to break up a gambling ring that was profiting off tourists on Westminster Bridge. The gambling rings would target tourists by setting up rigged games. Police would break up the games, but the wrongdoers learned to tell when the police were coming.

Cue the dynamic duo!

Police officers dressed as Batman and Robin mingled with the crowds, then struck when the time was right. Or as Mr. Kim might say, Sneak attack.

Companies retaining independent contractors can avoid needing to sneak attack if they set certain ground rules up front. One of these important ground rules relates to ownership of IP.

Intellectual property created by a non-employee is not automatically a work made for hire under US copyright law. Instead, an assignment of inventions clause is needed.

Ensuring that your own the contractor’s creations and the IP rights can be critical to getting the benefit of why you retained the IP. Consider the contractor who writes computed code or creates copy for your website. You want to own that IP.

(Or sometimes, like with an IC photographer, you might want to license it and allow the photographer to retain the copyright. But either way, you need to consider these issues in advance.)

But don’t wait until the protectable IP has been created to seek the assignment. Do it up front, in your independent contractor agreement.

Use a present assignment clause. The clause should say that any works created by the contractor and any IP rights arising out of those works are automatically assigned by the contractor upon creation, with no further affirmative act needed to effectuate the assignment. Do not merely say that the IP will be assigned, because that requires future action.

If you plan ahead with a proper assignment clause, you can avoid later trying to chase down the contractor for an assignment of the IP, which may already have been embedded into vital company property, such as computer code. Chasing down a contractor later might be easier than breaking up a gambling ring, and you might not even have to dress up as a superhero or his trusty sidekick.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

04.07.25

by Todd Lebowitz

Time Travel?! Check Your Contracts for “Services” Definitions.

I saw this tourist bus in New Zealand. So they finally figured it out. This company combines time travel and leisure, which I assume means that these tourists enjoyed a two-week vacation then returned home on the day they left.

Or maybe they were visiting from the future, which if true, I would have a lot of questions for them.

On a recent business transaction I worked, time travel might have helped the seller. Allow me to explain. The thing to remember is that words matter, just like there is a sharp difference between leisure time travel and leisure time travel. I choose to believe this touring company specialized in the latter.

The seller’s business was to offer technical specialists to its clients as consultants. The specialists had skills and expertise that the clients lacked. The consultants would advise the seller’s client. So far, so good. That’s a good business model.

But what we found as we read the contracts caused some concern. In all arrangements with clients, the seller’s function was the same — to identify and loan out technical specialists, while treating them as seller’s employees. Seller was operating as a quasi-staffing agency.

Even though the arrangements were the same each time, there was some sloppiness in how the “Services” were defined. In what I would call the Staffing Contracts, the seller’s agreements with its clients properly described the Services as identifying technical experts, loaning them out, and treating them as seller’s employees for employment and tax purposes.

But some of the agreements were what I would call Consulting Contracts. In the Consulting Contracts, the seller’s Services were described as providing the technical expertise desired by the client.

What’s the difference? Well it’s as big as the different between leisure time travel and leisure time travel. Suppose the individual consultant gives bad advice and makes a mistake that causes the client to lose money. The client then looks to the seller for indemnity and relief.

In a Services Contract, the client is entitled to no relief for a consultant’s bad advice. The seller did what it contracted to do. It provided the talent. But in a Consulting Contract, the seller contracted to provide consulting services. If the consulting services were provided in a negligent manner or resulted in a loss by the client, the seller might be liable for those damages.

The lesson here is to be careful when defining Services. If you are loaning out talent, be sure to define the Services narrowly.

Poor drafting may result in confusion and unexpected liability. If you find yourself in this situation, try to amend the contract, and see if you can make the amendment retroactive, time-travel style.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

09.16.24

by Todd Lebowitz

Try These Steps to Reduce IC Misclassification Risks, in the Long Run

Don Henley used to hurry a lot, he used to worry a lot, he used to stay out till the break of day.

But you don’t need to carry on that way. — at least when it comes to reducing your company’s risk of independent contractor misclassification. Here are four steps you can take that will proactively reduce risk, in the long run:

1. Review & Modify Actual Practices

Courts answer the question of Who Is My Employee? By reviewing the actual facts, not what the parties intend or what the contract says. Make sure the facts on the ground are consistent with economic independence of the contractor and a lack of control by the hiring party. Change the facts when you can.

2.Create a Vendor Qualification Questionnaire

Require vendors to make a set of written representations that support their status as independent contractors. Then rely on this set of representations when deciding whether to retain each contractor. These representations also help to pin down a contractor who later claims to be an employee.

3.Create a Gatekeeper Process

Sometimes contractors are retained by operations people who don’t know the first thing about misclassification and related legal risks. A gatekeeper process requires all retentions of independent contractors to flow through a designated person who can issue-spot and evaluate whether the proposed retention is consistent with independent contractor status. The gatekeeper has the discretion to approve or deny requests to retain a contractor.

4.Draft Customized Contracts

Any independent contractor agreement you find on the internet is pure garbage. Contracts should be customized:

To memorialize the specific facts that support independent contractor status in the relationship
To prohibit the exercise of control by the hiring party over various aspects of the relationship
To impose indemnity obligations and insurance requirements, and
To make it more difficult for a contractor to challenge the independent contractor classification

Taking proactive steps like these can help you to answer this question in the affirmative, when facing an independent contractor classification challenge: Who is gonna make it? We’ll find out, in the long run.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

06.03.24

by Todd Lebowitz

I Wanna Take Your Hire: How to Control a Third Party’s Wages without Becoming a Joint Employer

When Sly and the Family Stone released “I Want to Take You Higher” in 1969, it was originally a B-side. The song took off, though, and became a Top 40 hit anyway.

The song is an upbeat ode to how music can make you feel good. Fun fact: It was used as the theme song in the Canadian children’s show, Hilarious House of Frightenstein, to introduce the show’s disc jockey, the Wolfman, who is either a fictional part-wolf part-man or a human DJ who achieved vocational excellence (and got his own TV show!) despite an untreated case of hypertrichosis.

The Family Stone wasn’t the only band that would like to take you higher. Jackie Wilson went to Billboard #1 in 1967 with “(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher.” In 1990, Damn Yankees asked, “Can you take me high enough?” in their song, “High Enough.” And, not to be outdone, Duran Duran, in 1995, released two covers of the Family Stone song, calling the second, “I Want to Take You Higher Again.”

Why all this talk about higher? Because when you’re working with a third party labor provider that provides high-demand, skilled labor, sometimes you’ll want to take their hire. (Heh heh).

The right to direct hire is often addressed in the vendor agreement. Maybe you’ll pay a finder’s fee if you direct hire within the first 3-6 months. But I was asked a more intriguing question last week that I thought was worth a blog post. (Thanks, P! You know who you are.)

Here’s the scenario, which is most likely to arise in the competition for highly skilled workers, like computer programmers: We want to direct hire, but we don’t control the market. If the third party labor provider pays a premium for in-demand roles, they might pay more per hour than we pay. That would make it hard for us to direct hire to worker.

Which leads to this question: How do we cap the wage paid by the third party labor provider (so we can offer the direct hire a raise, not a pay cut), without dictating the wages paid by the third party, which would create joint employment risks?

Excellent question! The answer is to do it indirectly. Here’s how.

Suppose you want the option to direct hire a chimneysweep but wouldn’t dare pay more than $50/hour for a chimneysweep (other than Dick Van Dyke himself, but only in his prime). Chimneysweeps are in high demand and so third party labor providers may be paying their chimneysweeps $50/hour too so they can get the best ones. It’s a competitive labor market, you know.

You don’t want to tell the third party labor provider what to pay its chimneysweeps. Dictating the wages of a third party worker is a strong indicator of joint employment.

Instead, you should agree to pay the agency $50/hour for its chimneysweeps. Then you know they are paying the chimneysweeps less than $50/hour because the agency has to be making a profit. The markup is probably 35-45%, so you could even pay the agency up to about $65 per hour and be confident the chimneysweep is not taking home more than $50/hour.

Then, if you wanted to direct hire the chimneysweep for which you are paying the agency $60-65/hour, that sweeper is likely only being paid about $42-45/hour and so his sweeping prowess could be yours for the low low price of roughly $50/hour or less. That’s how I would approach this problem.

I don’t think any bands are singing about this issue directly, but if I told you they were really singing “I Want to Take Your Hire,” you just might hear it that way next time you listen.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

04.29.24

by Todd Lebowitz

Think Big: Ninth Circuit Provides Another Reason to Engage Entities, Not Individuals, in Independent Contractor Agreements

The world’s largest passenger elevator is inside the Jio World Center building in Mumbai, India. It can hold 235 people and is designed to cater to large gatherings, such as weddings or convention attendees.

The elevator has glass windows, offers panoramic views of the gardens below, and features a crystal-studded ceiling. It has two sofas so passengers can relax while ascending the maximum five floors at the slow but deliberate rate of 1 meter per second.

Thinking big doesn’t just work when building elevators. It also works when building independent contractor agreements.

Here’s what I mean.

When lots of contractors are being retained, an important feature to include in independent contractor agreements is the requirement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis, with a waiver of class claims. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arbitration agreements and class action waivers are generally valid and enforceable.

But there’s that pesky transportation exemption in Section 1 of the FAA, which says that the FAA does not apply to transportation workers. The Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries, holding that to determine whether the transportation worker exception applies, you need to look at what the worker does, not what industry the worker is in. But this post isn’t about Bissonette. It’s about a Ninth Circuit decision issued a few weeks earlier.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the transportation exemption applies only to individual workers, not to entities. Why does that matter? Well, is your independent contractor agreement with an individual or an entity?

If it’s with an individual, and the worker is engaged in transportation work related to interstate commerce, the transportation worker exception of the FAA might apply, which means the FAA and all of its protections for mandatory arbitration agreements would not apply.

But, according to the Ninth Circuit, if your arbitration agreement is with a business entity, then the transportation worker exception does not apply, since it is inapplicable to business-to-business disputes. That means the FAA does apply.

Engaging small businesses, even single member LLCs, can offer a number of advantages when trying to protect independent contractor status. This recent Ninth Circuit decision offers another advantage, better protecting the parties’ ability to require arbitration of disputes and waivers of class claims.

So when engaging independent contractors, remember to think bigger than the individual. If you can contract with an entity, even a single member LLC, you might be better off — for lots of reasons, even if none of them come with a sofa or panoramic views.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

03.04.24

by Todd Lebowitz

Don’t Horse Around: Here Are Three Agreements You Should Have on Your Shelf

Police in Wejherowo, Poland arrested a 19-year-old man for stealing a horse. The man was caught after neighbors reported that he was trying to lead a horse up the stairs to his third floor apartment.

Why would someone do that? Apparently he was trying to conceal the horse and thought his apartment would make a good hiding place. (After all, who would look in a third-floor walk up for a missing horse?) But getting the horse to the apartment was the man’s undoing.

He didn’t think through his plan. Don’t be like that man. Today’s post is to help you think through your plan in advance, but in the context of retaining non-employee labor, not stealing a horse.

I generally recommend having three types of agreements in your stable of documents. (Heh heh, see what I did there?) Each serves a different purpose and contains different features, even though there is often some overlap.

1. Independent Contractor Agreement. This should be crafted for use with solo independent contractors (1099s), regardless of whether there’s a single member LLC or a sole proprietorship.

The goal here is limit the risk of misclassification, that is, a finding that the worker is really your employee.

The agreement should identify and memorialize the facts that support IC status, such as that the company retains no right to control how the work is done, where it’s done, when it’s done, steps, sequence, etc.

If there are lots of ICs doing the same thing, individual arbitration agreements with class waivers can be highly useful to include too, as they reduce the downside risk of misclassification.

2. Vendor Outsourcing Agreement. This document is for when a function is entirely outsourced, such as in the hospitality industry, where it is common to outsource the housekeeping function.

There are two goals here.

One goal is to memorialize the facts that will help avoid a finding of joint employment. These workers should be managed independently of your company’s employees and should not be directly supervised by your managers.

The second goal is make it difficult for a disgruntled worker of the vendor to allege joint employment, and there are various tools in the toolbox to help accomplish this objective.

3. Staffing Services Agreement. This document is to be used when a third party provides staff augmentation services or other workers who are commingled with your employees or supervised by your managers. In this scenario, there’s a reasonable risk of joint employment.

We want to use the contract to build defenses.

First, we want to lay the groundwork for a claim against the vendor if the vendor fails to pay its employees in accordance with the law.

Second, we want to throw obstacles in the way of anyone who might want to bring a joint employment claim. Individual arbitration agreements with class waivers are helpful in that regard.

If you’re working with a staffing agency, the form they provide you is not likely to help limit your legal risks. It’s always better to start with your own form.

Don’t Horse Around

Agreements provided by your vendors are unlikely to provide you with any meaningful protections. Different agreements have different purposes, and these three agreements should each be used in different situations.

It doesn’t work to use a staffing agreement with outsourced employees, and it doesn’t work to use an independent contractor agreement with outsourced labor employed by the vendor. Those workers aren’t independent contractors at all; they’re employees of the vendor. The legal risk you’re trying to address is whether you’re a joint employer. That’s a very different legal question than whether the worker is misclassified.

So be sure to use the right kind of agreement for the right kind of situation.

That means planing ahead and having the right forms on hand, ready to go. As our friend in Wejherowo learned the hard way, you’ve got think all the way through your plan in advance.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

12.18.23

by Todd Lebowitz

How to Handle Background Checks for Staffing Agency Workers (and Avoid a Stinky Mess)

After a stolen SUV crashed in Wisconsin and its four occupants fled, one made the unfortunate decision to hide in a golf course port-a-potty. A golfer watched the events unfold and decided to take action, flipping the port-a-potty on its side, door facing down, to trap the car thief inside. (Oh, crap!) Police then arrived on the scene and arrested the now-stink-covered occupant.

Today’s tip is to help you avoid a stinky situation when requiring vendors to background check their workers.

When working with staffing agencies or other vendors supplying labor, you’ll often want to require background checks. But you have a few competing interests, so it matters how you impose this requirement.

First, you probably don’t want to do the background check yourself. For joint employment reasons, you don’t want to play a role in hiring and selection and, for practical reasons, you don’t want to adjudicate background check results on all of the vendor’s candidates. Require them to do the initial screening.

Second, it would be easy to provide the vendor with a list of automatic exclusions, but you don’t want to go there either. Background checks laws generally require an individualized analysis to be done. Avoid creating a “no hire” matrix.

So how can you make sure the vendor conducts an appropriate review of the results and doesn’t send you a worker with a concerning criminal history?

Here’s the strategy I prefer:

1. Require the vendor/staffing agency to perform the background check.

2. Require that they adjudicate the results.

3. But, also require that if they want to place anyone with a prior conviction for theft or violence, they must first notify you and provide a copy of the report and any additional information provided by the candidate.

4. Require that the vendor/staffing agency follow all background check laws.

5. Require that the vendor/staffing agency obtain consent from each candidate to share the results of any background check with your company. They should incorporate that concept into their consent document.

Here’s why I like this process:

First, as a practical matter, a vendor with this arrangement is very unlikely to send you anyone with convictions for theft or violence. They’ll prescreen those out because they know that’s a concern for you.

Second, if the vendor wants to advance someone with one of these convictions, it means one of two things: (a) there may be mitigating factors with this candidate that would support allowing the person to work, or (b) the vendor is being lazy, sending everyone through without running the first level adjudication you’ve required.

If (a), that’s good information. Conduct a second level adjudication. Consider mitigating factors. See how the candidate responds to a pre-adverse action notice. Avoid automatic exclusions and consider whatever facts the candidate provides.

If (b), you need to have a talk with the vendor because they’re not performing the first level adjudication that you’ve required. If you didn’t have this kind of notice process, you might never have known the vendor was being lazy in the adjudication process.

There are several decision points in drafting this kind of clause, but the points listed above are the main items to cover. Variations in drafting may focus on the timing of the convictions, the types of convictions to identify, whether to include drug testing or motor vehicle records checks, and which party performs various tasks related to pre- and post-adverse action notifications.

You’ll also want your contract to make clear that any decision you make that a candidate cannot be placed at your company is not a decision about their overall employment status with the agency. The agency can do what it wants with the person’s employment. All you’re saying is that the agency can’t assign that person to work for you.

By including a process like this in your agreements with staffing agencies and other vendors that supply laborers, you can stay on the right side of the background check law, manage joint employment risks, and still have the opportunity to block candidates who have a criminal history that creates unacceptable risk.

It’s too bad that future background check results for the car thief who got stuck in the port-a-potty won’t include that level of detail. Not that it would make a difference in screening out someone who steals cars, but it would be a fun detail to know. Yuck!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

12.11.23

by Todd Lebowitz

The Best of You: When to Use a Master Services Agreement with Independent Contractors

In “Best of You” by Foo Fighters, Dave Grohl repeats the word “best” 40 times. In “Coconut,” Harry Nillson repeats the word “coconut” 28 times. I get it, Harry, she put the lime in the coconut and she got a bellyache. In “I Don’t Care Anymore,” Phil Collins ends the song with 18 mentions of “no more,” which all right I get your point.

Repeating the same thing over and over might be a useful device when performing a song. But it’s annoying in independent contractor agreements. And it’s unnecessary.

Consider using a Master Services Agreement (MSA) instead, which is a particular type of independent contractor agreement.

An MSA is an evergreen contract that describes the terms of the relationship but does not specify the particular project. The MSA will often describe the type of service to be performed — delivery, installation, whatever — but it will not describe the specific delivery or installation (or whatever).

Instead, each specific project will be described in a separate Work Order. For an installation, the Work Order would describe the customer, the location, the product to be installed, any specific customer requirements tied to that order, the installation time or deadline, and the fee to be paid. The MSA and Work Order would both make clear, in pre-printed text, that every Work Order is subject to the MSA.

The advantage of this setup is that it’s simple and convenient. There’s no need to restate the full terms of the relationship in every Work Order, particularly if the contractor is likely to perform multiple projects, all of which are subject to the same general terms and conditions.

The MSA will be a multi-page document containing all of the general terms we would expect to see in an independent contractor agreement, including representations as to IC status, a recitation of facts that support IC status, the obligations of each party, payment and invoicing terms, a general description of services, a list of things the contracting party will not control, indemnity, insurance, duration or termination, survival, and other typical IC contract terms.

The MSA should make clear that the IC can reject or accept specific proposed Work Orders, which is consistent with the IC being allowed to choose when to work. But the MSA should also make clear that once a Work Order is accepted, the IC has a contractual obligation to perform.

The MSA might also specify the manner in which Work Orders are offered and accepted. While it is preferable to have each Work Order signed, that’s not always practical. Consider how Work Orders will be accepted, and describe in the MSA what will constitute acceptance. In some cases, acceptance might be indicated by the contractor’s receipt of a Work Order and the contractor’s failure to decline it within 24 hours. It’s ok to create a presumption of acceptance, but you’ll want to preserve the contractor’s right to decline any particular Work Order without penalty.

And that’s how you can create the best, the best, the best of contracts.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

11.27.23

by Todd Lebowitz

New York State Jumps on the Band Wagon with New Freelancer Law

In the 1800s, P.T. Barnum used to promote the arrival of the circus with parades and clowns and band wagons through the town. By the late 1800s, politicians were noticing the excitement generated by the band wagons, and they would ride their own band wagons through town to generate support and excitement for the campaigns. Supporters would climb aboard, and the phrase “jump on the band wagon” was born.

So it seems fair to say, even back then, politicians were imitating clowns.

Over time, the phrase has come to mean rallying around any popular cause, clowns or no clowns.

And with the new statewide Freelance Isn’t Free Act, signed by Gov. Hochul on Nov. 22, the State of New York has done just that. New York’s statewide adoption of this freelancer law follows similar laws enacted in Illinois, New York City, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Columbus. You can compare the four cities’ laws here and read more about Illinois’ law here.

Here’s what the NY State version will require, any time there is a contract with an individual independent contractor for services valued at $800 or more, either for one project or an aggregation of projects over 120 days:

Written contract required, which must include:
- Name and address of hiring party and contractor
- Itemization of services
- Value of services
- Rate and method of compensation
- Date payment is due, or how due date will be determined
- Any deadline by which the contractor must submit a list of services provided so that the hiring party can timely process payment.
The hiring party must provide a copy of the contract to the contractor.
The hiring party must retain the contract for six years!
Payment to the contractor must be made by the deadline specified in the contract or, if no deadline is specified, then within 30 days after the services have been completed.
The hiring party cannot require the contractor to accept less than the contracted amount. (The law does not seem to provide any exception for unsatisfactory services.)
Retaliation is prohibited against any contractor who seeks to exercise rights under the Act.

If there is a dispute over whether timely payment was made, the burden of proof is on the hiring party.

The law creates a private right of action.

The penalty for failing to provide a written contract is $250, if the contractor requested the written contract. Such a claim must be brought within two years.

The penalty for failing to make payment as required by the law or under the contract is the value of the contract, plus double damages, plus attorneys’ fees, and possibly injunctive relief. The statute of limitations for this type of claim is six years.

Waivers of any right under this Act are void as against public policy.

The law takes effect on May 20, 2024, and it will apply to contracts entered into after that date. In December 2022, Gov. Hochul vetoed an earlier version of this law, finding that it imposed too great a burden on the NYSDOL. Those concerns have been resolved in the new version of the Act.

The law does not apply to contracts with independent sales representatives, lawyers, medical professionals, or construction contractors.

The law applies not only to businesses, but to anyone in New York State who retains an independent contractor. As we discussed here when the New York City version of the law was enacted in 2017, the Act applies even to babysitters and dog walkers, if the minimum compensation amount is met.

Businesses and individuals who retain individual independent contractors in New York State, Illinois, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Columbus need to know their obligations under these laws and act accordingly.

The Freelance Isn’t Free laws do not weigh in on whether the contractor is properly classified as an independent contractor.

There is a clear trend toward passing these types of laws, and we can expect more cities and states to jump on the band wagon.

Who Is My Employee?

Exploring Independent Contractor Misclassification & Joint Employment Issues

Category Archives: Contracts

Different Strokes: Be Careful With Choice of Law Clauses in IC Agreements

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Holy Bat Trap: Here’s How to Protect IP Created by Contractors

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Time Travel?! Check Your Contracts for “Services” Definitions.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Try These Steps to Reduce IC Misclassification Risks, in the Long Run

Subscribe to Blog via Email

I Wanna Take Your Hire: How to Control a Third Party’s Wages without Becoming a Joint Employer

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Think Big: Ninth Circuit Provides Another Reason to Engage Entities, Not Individuals, in Independent Contractor Agreements

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Don’t Horse Around: Here Are Three Agreements You Should Have on Your Shelf

Subscribe to Blog via Email

How to Handle Background Checks for Staffing Agency Workers (and Avoid a Stinky Mess)

Subscribe to Blog via Email

The Best of You: When to Use a Master Services Agreement with Independent Contractors

Subscribe to Blog via Email

New York State Jumps on the Band Wagon with New Freelancer Law

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this: