Marilyn Cole, a beloved figure in the Crenshaw neighborhood of Los Angeles, has long been known for her 99\u2011cent soul\u2011food platters that bring families together. In recent months, however, the chef has publicly announced that she has lost her business, her reputation, and her financial stability after entering into a legal agreement with two California attorneys. The dispute has sparked a media investigation and raised questions about the role of lawyers in small\u2011business partnerships.<\/p>\n
Marilyn Cole began her culinary career in the late 1990s, opening a modest food cart that quickly became a staple in the Crenshaw community. Her menu\u2014featuring classic Southern dishes like fried chicken, collard greens, and cornbread\u2014was sold for just 99 cents per platter, a price point that made her food accessible to many. Over the years, the chef expanded her brand, opening a small storefront and launching a line of packaged sauces.<\/p>\n
In early 2025, Cole began experiencing financial difficulties. She cited rising rent costs, increased competition, and a surge in ingredient prices as key factors that strained her cash flow. Facing mounting debt, the chef sought professional help and turned to two attorneys, Cierra\u202fCarter and Channing\u202fSmith, who had experience working with food\u2011industry entrepreneurs.<\/p>\n
According to statements released by the chef, the attorneys \u201chelped\u201d her by offering to manage the administrative side of her business. In return, they presented a deal memo that would cover her existing debts, grant them the right to use her name, likeness, recipes, and potential trademarks, and split future profits 60\/40 in their favor.<\/p>\n
Both attorneys have publicly defended their actions. In a joint statement, Carter and Smith said they had acted in good faith and that the agreement was designed to protect the chef\u2019s interests while ensuring the business could continue to operate. They claimed that the deal included provisions for the chef to retain a 40% share of profits and that the lawyers would handle all legal and financial matters, freeing her to focus on cooking.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe entered into this partnership with the intention of providing stability to a hardworking entrepreneur who was facing significant financial pressure,\u201d said Carter. \u201cThe agreement was structured to allow Ms.\u202fCole to maintain a meaningful stake in her brand while giving us the resources to address her debt and secure the business\u2019s future.\u201d<\/p>\n
Smith added that the lawyers had conducted due diligence on the business\u2019s financial statements and had negotiated terms that he believed were fair given the circumstances. He also emphasized that the lawyers had no intention of \u201cscamming\u201d the chef, but rather were acting as advisors and partners.<\/p>\n
The situation has prompted a broader conversation about the ethical responsibilities of attorneys who take on business partnerships. Critics argue that lawyers who become co\u2011owners of a client\u2019s business may face conflicts of interest, especially when the client\u2019s financial health is precarious.<\/p>\n
Legal scholars point out that the American Bar Association\u2019s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to avoid situations where their personal interests could compromise their professional judgment. In this case, the attorneys\u2019 dual role as both advisors and profit\u2011sharing partners raises concerns about whether they could remain objective.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the use of a \u201cdeal memo\u201d rather than a formal partnership agreement has been criticized. A deal memo is typically a preliminary document that outlines the main terms of a potential agreement but does not carry the same legal weight as a fully executed contract. Critics argue that this approach may have left the chef vulnerable to misunderstandings about her rights and obligations.<\/p>\n
In a recent interview with The Shade Room<\/em>, Chef Cole expressed feeling \u201cbetrayed\u201d and \u201cexploited.\u201d She said that the lawyers had promised her that the partnership would help her \u201cgrow her brand and keep her business afloat.\u201d Instead, she claims that the lawyers have taken control of her recipes, brand identity, and marketing, leaving her with little say in how her food is presented.<\/p>\n \u201cI thought I was getting help, not a takeover,\u201d she told the reporter. \u201cI was told I could focus on cooking, but now I\u2019m being told what I can and can\u2019t do with my own brand.\u201d<\/p>\n Chef Cole also highlighted the emotional toll of the situation. \u201cI\u2019ve built this business from the ground up, and now I feel like I\u2019ve lost everything,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s not just the money; it\u2019s the community that has supported me for years.\u201d<\/p>\n Legal experts suggest that the chef may have several options. One possibility is to file a lawsuit alleging breach of contract or fraud if she can prove that the attorneys misrepresented the terms of the deal. Another option is to negotiate a buy\u2011back of her shares, though this would depend on the lawyers\u2019 willingness to comply.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the attorneys have indicated that they are open to mediation. They claim that a resolution that allows the chef to regain control of her brand is possible, provided both parties are willing to negotiate in good faith.<\/p>\n As the story unfolds, the culinary community watches closely to see whether Chef Cole can reclaim her business and whether the legal profession will take a closer look at the ethical implications of lawyers entering into business partnerships with their clients.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Marilyn Cole, a beloved figure in the Crenshaw neighborhood of Los Angeles, has long been known for her 99\u2011cent soul\u2011food platters that bring families together. In recent months, however, the chef has publicly announced that she has lost her business, her reputation, and her financial stability…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3488,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13129\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3488"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Potential Outcomes and Next Steps<\/h2>\n
FAQ<\/h2>\n
\n