Can we hold Johnny Depp responsible for his own money?

I suspect the answer is yes

So you may have heard that Johnny Depp is broke. In fact, it’s kind of old news now that he decided to sue his financial advisers The Management Group, and that they’re suing him right back.

But the whole lawsuit thing raises interesting questions about the ethics of financial advice and personal responsibility for your finances, so let’s take a moment to revisit Mr Depp and his woes.

The conundrum

Here’s the question we’re asking ourselves:

Should Johnny Depp (ostensibly a functioning adult) be responsible for his own financial situation, or does the responsibility lie with the people he pays to handle it?

On the one hand, Johnny Depp is a grown man who should by all rights be able to manage his own money effectively enough to know that buying French villages and spending $30,000 a month on wine is not exactly sound financial strategy.

On the other hand, and I can’t believe I’m saying this but, he might have a point. Depp reportedly paid The Management Group $28 million to handle his finances. With a price tag like that, you’d like to assume you were getting a quality product. I won’t even spend $100 on jeans unless they’re likely to last me at least a decade or two.

So does their massive paycheck mean Management Group had a duty of care to Depp? And, more to the point, how far does that responsibility reach?

The plot thickens

Here’s the thing: according to their countersuit, The Management Group did try to counsel Depp away from his ridiculous spending, for example around Christmas, when they told him to “take it easy on holiday spending.”

I’m assuming that means they begged him not to buy every strand of fairy lights in Europe to string through an alpine forest where every tree was topped with a solid gold star, in some kind of weird, magical ritual.

His response was apparently, “I need to give my kiddies and famille as good a Christmas as possible,” which sounds like such a Johnny Depp thing to say that I absolutely believe it happened. There’s probably an alpine forest near a small French village somewhere, absolutely stuffed with Christmas lights.

So, if they give Depp advice and he proceeds to ignore the advice, then what exactly is The Management Group supposed to do? Should they take away his credit cards, like a naughty schoolboy having his slingshot confiscated? Sit him in a corner until he learns the error of his ways?

Recently in Australia, talk has flared up again around the idea of a restricted debit card for people on welfare payments. The card’s been trialled in remote communities (with mostly indigenous populations, but that’s a kettle of fish I’m not opening at the moment) where welfare recipients began getting 80% of their payments put on a debit card, which they can’t use to buy alcohol, gamble, or withdraw cash. The idea is to limit alcohol abuse and gambling problems, and encourage spending on fresh food.

Although the Government has labelled it a success, the card’s been controversial since day one. Mainly, the argument against it is that it takes people’s autonomy away — after all, there’s nothing more sacred in Australia than your right to a carton of VB at the end of the week. Or the beginning of the week. Or anytime really.

They talked about it on Gogglebox (which is a show where you watch people watching TV shows from the last week, just so you know. Don’t judge me) and most of the people on the show thought being dictated to about what you could or couldn’t spend money on was ridiculous. It’s safe to say Australia is not sold.

Now, it’s not a perfect parallel — but bare with me here: if we’re so outraged by the idea of being told what we can spend welfare payments on, then why should we expect The Management Group to hold Depp’s purse strings for him? Answer: we shouldn’t.

Here’s what I think

If wrongly filed taxes and dodgy accounting was the bulk of Depp’s problems, then I’d say yes, The Management Group was responsible. But it seems the problem lies squarely in Depp’s spending, which is rumoured to be up to 1.6 million a month. And that’s on him.

I’d agree that if you’re being paid to manage someone’s finances then you have a certain duty of care towards them. That means you should:

1. Pay their bills and taxes on time. (Depp alleges that Management Group didn’t pay his taxes on time once in 16 years, which they dispute. Honestly though, how many years do you let someone screw up their job before firing them?)
2. Give good advice, with your client’s best interest in mind.

But giving good advice doesn’t mean you should have the power to take away a grown man’s credit cards, or tell him whether or not he’s allowed to buy a yacht. After all, it’s his money. You can lead Johnny Depp to sound financial decisions, but you can’t make him stop buying private islands.

Because the bottom line is, Johnny Depp is an adult who has the right to spend his money however he wants. And if he reigns in his spending and just lives a life of luxury the same as any other multi-millionaire Hollywood actor, then good for him. But if he winds up broke, with nothing but too many hats and excellent cheekbones to his name, then, well, the blame lies largely on his shoulders.

It only becomes anyone else’s problem if he decides to recover his losses with a sequel to the Lone Ranger. Or, God forbid, yet another Alice in Wonderland movie. Just let it die, dude.

This is a spiky issue, so feel free to weigh in with your own opinion.

She’s On The Money blogs over at Mozo.com.au