The final episode of “The Sopranos” may have ended in ambiguity, but there was nothing uncertain about the verdict of a New Jersey jury that concluded a breach-of-contract case against the creator of the series.

After just one hour and 22 minutes of deliberations, the panel returned a defense verdict Dec. 19, finding that Robert V. Baer, a former New Jersey judge, did not show he reasonably expected to be paid for services he provided to David Chase during the development of “The Sopranos.”

Baer claimed he deserved up to $95,000 for giving Chase an “intensive three-day crash course on crime, criminal syndicates, and, specifically, mafia operations in New Jersey.” His claim was based on a “quantum meruit” theory, which allows “quasi-contractual recovery for services rendered when a party confers a benefit with a reasonable expectation of payment.”

The verdict form shows the jury believed that Baer was a Hollywood hopeful who performed his services “in the hope that he might obtain future opportunities in the entertainment business through David Chase” rather than be compensated monetarily. The jury never reached the issue of how much, if anything, his services were worth.

In what appears to have been crucial testimony, Baer conceded under cross-examination that he turned down three offers from Chase to pay him for his services and never signed a written contract.

“Listen, don't worry about it. If the show hits, you can take care of me. It's a longshot,” he recalled telling Chase. At the time, he was pursuing a career as a screenwriter.

"In show business, there are way too many cases like this," Chase said after the verdict. "I tried to help him out with his writing, but it didn't work."

Baer called the verdict a moral victory because the jury determined he had performed services for Chase. But he also said “we tried this case with our hands tied behind our backs” as a result of a pretrial ruling.

Granting a defense motion in limine, U.S. District Judge Joel A. Pisano precluded the plaintiff from presenting evidence relating to any creative ideas or suggestions he may have shared with Chase. The trial would be strictly limited to the “quantum meruit” claim, Baer's claim for misappropriation of his ideas having earlier been dismissed on summary judgment.

Defense co-counsel David L. Harris told the jury that Baer was just doing Chase a “favor” when he escorted him around northern New Jersey for three days.

Baer “served as a source of information at the writing stage of a pilot," Harris said. "This case was a lot about favors. Only Mr. Baer comes after the fact. He expects money for favors. ... No one in the TV industry has ever seen compensation for this kind of favor.”

But the jury specifically rejected that argument by answering “Yes” to the question, “Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Robert Baer performed services for David Chase with a reasonable expectation of compensation, and not as a favor to David Chase?”

By Matthew Heller
12/20/07