f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

November 3, 2005

three law firms give up their “Dream Team” joint p/i ads

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:12 pm


On August 4, 2003, ethicalEsq offered a bit of free antitrust advice to four lawyers,

from three NY Capital Region law firms, who were about to launch a giant joint-


Calling themselves The Dream Team, the already-successful and high-profile p/i

lawyers were on tv screens and billboards for several months. 



The self-proclaimed “Dream Team” included: E. Stewart Jones from Troy, 

Steve Coffey and Tom DiNovo of Albany’s O’Connell & Aronowitz, and 


                                                                                                               napper gray sm

 

We’ve been wondering what happened to The Dream Team — whose individual

firms have been again advertising separately — and the answer came in an article 

this Sunday from the Albany Times Union — “Lawyer team’s dream ended in squab-

ble over ad’s wording,” by Carol DeMare, Oct. 30, 2005)   As the article explains:


“The Dream Team lasted only three or four months. The Com-

mittee on Professional Standards, which monitors attorneys’ conduct,

questioned the advertisement and “said it could be misleading,” Coffey

said Friday. The committee told the lawyers that “people might not be

sure if they were getting three firms or one firm,” Coffey said.  . . . 

 

“To avoid confusion, the commercials began carrying a disclaimer that

only one of the three firms would be involved with a case, chosen on a

revolving basis, Coffey said.

 

erasingS

 

“Initially, the committee appeared satisfied. “But then they called back

and said, ‘No, we don’t think your disclaimer will work. We don’t think

the Dream Team of three firms will work,”‘ Coffey said.”

According to Coffey, it was a “successful campaign” with “a tremendous amount

of feedback. . . It was very well received, people liked it, were very happy with it.”

Nonetheless, Team members decided not to appeal the issue to the Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court, despite Coffey wanting to challenge it “on the basis

of First Amendment right of freedom of association.”  Coffey continued:


“I thought we had the right to do it. I didn’t think it was misleading at

all and, if so, we could correct it. But, overall, we made a business

decision that it wasn’t worth it.”

 

“It was a concept as far as I know never adopted by anyone else

in the country, a great concept.”

                                                                                                            ooh

 

Well, we don’t think this will help the Dream Team’s image — three law firms with

hard-hitting tv ads and tough images, who can’t find the gumption to defend their

purported constitutional rights in order to protect a successful marketing tool.  For

the reasons we gave two years ago, we believe there were plenty of antitrust issues

surrounding the joint venture that needed to be cleared up.  In addition, there was

indeed a great potential for consumer confusion.  

 

The team mates obviously didn’t have enough faith in the project to continue their

fight.  I think that’s the best result for Capital Region consumers, and I hope law

firms in other areas see this outcome and decide this “great concept” needs to

remain a dream rather than a reality.

 


tiny check  f/k/a’s Honored Guest Poets aren’t rivals.  But, any pair of them

clearly constitute a haiku Dream Team.  Here are Peggy Lyles

and paul m, to prove my point:

 

 

 


witnessing his will

the frost-hatched

pane

 

 

 

 

 






chalk dust

in the eraser trough

autumn chill

 

 

 

 

blackboard abc

 

 

 

yellow leaves

a girl plays hopscotch

by herself

 

 

 


from To Hear the Rain (Brooks Books, 2002) 

 

 

 








fallen leaves

the rusty wheelbarrow

heavy with stones

 

 

 

 

 

coming nor’easter

all the coins

younger than me

 

 

 







penny sm   penny sm

 

 

we walk in silence

a sea stone

not there at high tide

 

 


“fallen leaves” – finding the way (Press Here, 2002)

“coming” & “we walk” – Roadrunner Haiku Journal V:2

 

 







  • by dagosan                                               







autumn wedding

sweeping up brown and yellow

rice

 

[Nov. 3, 2005]

                                                                                                           ooh neg

                                                                        

finito con “scalito” — it’s a silly sobriquet

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 4:02 am

This grandson of Italy is firmly in the camp of those who would prefer

an early burial of the nickname “Scalito” for Judge Samual Alito, at least

for purposes of public discourse — not, however, because it is a grave

insult to Italian-Americans.  I think it is sufficiently immature, misleading

and insulting (to both ends of the portmanteauScalia and Alito), to be

inappropriate in a serious public debate.  

 

scalitoXg   For an extensive and excellent discussion of the debate over the

word “Scalito,” complete with linguisitic and political analysis, see Benjamin

Zimmer’s Language Log, which featured A perilous portmanteau?” (Nov. 1,

2005) and Squabbles over ‘Scalito’” (Nov. 2, 2005).  Nick at musementpark 

also has a few prime comments, suggesting that those who love wordplay

had little choice but to dream up the nickname for Judge Sam.










empty bottle

a few words

I would like to take back

             John Stevenson from Quiet Enough

 

The immediate charges of anti-Italian bias by the National Italian American

Foundation (NIAL) and racism by unnamed Republican operatives, followed

by defensive speculations on the left about the intentions of the complainants, 

suggest that raising the American Emotional Quotient (and especially that

of the media, the Web, and “defamation professionals”) should be an important

national priority.  

 


 




on the face

that last night called me names

morning sunbeam

 









earplugs

now my heart is

too loud

 


(Brooks Books, 2000) 

 

Whether hired, self-annoited or otherwise chosen, those who see their jobs

as protecting and defending the “reputation” of any group, far too often adopt

a lowest-common-threshold of offense, and an ultra-sensitive ear for insult. 

Thus, NIAF complained in its press release (on Oct. 31, 2005):


                                                                                     “scalitoXNover” 

 

“The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and

the media (CNN,CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito’s out-

standing record, by frequent reference to his Italian heritage

and by the use of the nickname, ‘Scalito’.”

Oddly, NIAF mentioned Alito’s Italian heritage two times in the three-

sentence press release that same day, in which it applauded Pres.

Bush’s appointment of Judge Alito.  More telling, the Foundation’s own

Mission Statement boasts that it is “raising the prominence of all things

Italian in American culture and society, and making ‘Italian American’

part of the national conversation.”  People who group together to broad-

cast their pride in their ancestry, should not be insulted when their

ancestry is pointed out.  On the personal, group and ethnic level, looking

for reasons to be insulted makes you look pathologically insecure. 


tiny check  When the press or the pols say “He’s Italian, he’s Italian,

and so is Justice Scalia,” the response from NIAF should be,

“Yes, and ain’t that grand!” 

Until Sam Alito lets us know that he considers “Scalito” to be a fine

sobriquet, and Antonin Scalia concurs in adopting the portmanteau,

let’s shelve it and get to the merits of this nomination.  Crybabies and

namecallers shouldn’t be directing this show.

 


p.s.  I disagree with NIAF and with BMG‘s David Kravitz that

it would be anti-semitic to use similar wordplay linking the

names of Jewish judges who are seen as ideologically-close.

The fact that some observers might call it anti-semitic is not

persuasive, without more evidence of malicious intent.  Pointing

out that two smart and successful judges happen to be both

Jewish — or Italian, or Catholic — is not ethnic prejudice.

 

[For example: If the hypothetical Judges Greenberg and

Goldberger were perceived as judicial soul-mates, referring

to the pair as “Greenberger” (or even “Cheeseberger” ) might

be silly or insulting, but it isn’t on its face anti-semitic.]

 

 

 







first snow

what a racket

from the geese

 

 

 

 

I know the rules–

the wind blows

the leaves move

 

 

 

 

 





still ahead of us

the storm

we’ve been driving toward

 

 

 


 

 
their laughter

is not about me

but would sound

just like that

if it was

 

 


except: “empty bottle” – Upstate Dim Sum  (2002/I)





 

 

                                                                                             “scalitoXGover”

 

Powered by WordPress