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

November 17, 2005

dagosan’s scrapbook — November 2005

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:49 pm


– below are haiku and senryu written by “dagosan”, this weblog’s Editor, David A. Giacalone. most have been on the Home Page, some are outtakes and rewrites. each is a work in progress. i hope they show improvement over time and encourage others to try writing haiku –

 – click here for dagosan’s archive index





men washing dishes –

an early alarm

ends her Thanksgiving dream


               [Nov. 24, 2005]







first snow —

an entire city

learning to drive









Thanksgiving snow storm –

a seatbelt protects each 

steaming pie



[Nov. 23, 2005]









a wintry mix

at the bedroom window

big wet ones



[Nov. 22, 2005]    












home for Thanksgiving —

in my old bed

in the guest room


[Nov. 21, 2005]







smells like Thanksgiving —

two dads smoke cigars

behind the garage



            [Nov. 20, 2005]







full morning moon —

the working girl’s

gauzy blouse








Thanksgiving rush —

not as late

as that flock of geese










her lawyer listed

under “Martial Law”




 [Nov. 19, 2005]











casual Friday

the senior partner

unbuttons his vest


    [Nov. 18, 2005]







Indian Summer —

a squirrel tips over 

the bag of rock salt

[Nov. 16, 2005]






she’ll never

own a cell phone!

she borrows mine



       [Nov. 15, 2005]







gone a week —

only the librarian

says “i missed you”


   [Nov. 15, 2005]










heading home —  

one hawk

floats over the Beltway












entering New York:

another autumn hill

turns my head












from daylight to dark —

a full moon

out my windshield











gone a week —

quick peek to see

the river’s still there











unloading the car —

the moon

followed me home



 [Nov. 14, 2005]










a lovely river

but not

my river



[Nov. 12, 2005]











the elm died

and the tulip tree grew —

between visits




              [Nov. 11, 2005]















“you look so good” 

on their counter, too,










nearly-full moon

the walk to the market 

got a lot steeper



[Nov. 9, 2005]










the senior partner

has a senior minute









mid-argument –

opposing counsel crosses

her legs


[Nov. 9, 2005]










autumn highway —

distracted by

past-peak beauty








back in town —

three wrong turns

in a row


[Nov. 8, 2005]











a once-familiar route —

they’ve never seen my baldspot 

                  [Nov. 7, 2005]  









Guy Fawkes Night —

treacle better taste better

than it sounds


      [Nov. 6, 2005]








same moon

same clock tower –



                     [Nov. 5, 2005]






bad news

from the doctor —

voices through the wall












Day of the Dead —

the anorexic

looks envious

[Nov. 4, 2005]





autumn wedding

sweeping up brown and yellow



[Nov. 3, 2005]


special delivery –

a smile from

the pregnant mailman



                             [Nov. 2, 2005]





just enough:

one wheelbarrow

two sisters, three pumpkins










November 1st —

All Sales Day

in the candy aisle







under her sheet –

the sleepy ghost

hides a Snickers bar



    [Nov. 1, 2005]



sitting on her suitcase

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 5:41 pm


25th anniversary . . .

  she sits on the suitcase

  to zip it shut







mountain butterfly

  from her boulder

  to mine







dawn rain

dripping off autumn leaves

her yawn     my yawn


“mountain butterfly” – Modern Haiku XXXI:2; glimpse of red: rma 2000 

“25th anniversary” – RAW NerZ XII:3; pegging the wind: rma 2002

“dawn rain” – School’s Out (Press Here, 1999) 



waving from the river bank

waving back



               [Nov. 13, 2004]



“prof grace”  Are you risk-seeking tonight? At RiskProf, you will find a

serious  piece  by Ty Leverty explaining why insurance prices are going up

post-Katrina, and a light-hearted post by Martin Grace about

dating services and the regulation thereof.   Steve Bainbridge

certainly does not have a monopoly on things eclectic (nor

Catholic) on the lawprof web.


tiny check  At Houston’s Clear Thinkers, Tom Kirkendall rightly

decries the Texas system for selecting judges — elections — as

utterly unsupportable. (via Overlawyered.com).   Tom supports

an appointment process similar to that used for federal judges

(perhaps with a limited term).  He notes:

“Although a growing number of Texans agree that elections

are not the best way to choose judges, the tendency in Texas

politics is for the party in control of the statehouse to support

the current system because most of the elected judges are from

that party. Inasmuch as the Republicans are now solidly in

control of Texas state government, the GOP state leaders are in

no hurry to change even a flawed system so long as it produces

judges mainly from their party”  .  . . .


“Thus, this is one of those issues where — regardless of your

political affiliation — the right answer is clear. Only a politician

who is more interested in maintaining power than in improving

the administration of justice would support the current flawed


ooh neg As I’ve pointed out previously, we have a similarly lousy system

here in New York.  The chance for reform might be even worse: each

major party is solidly in control of one house of the legislature.  Parties

often cross-nominate each other’s candidate, who is chosen by the

relevant county party chairman.  Here in Schenectady County, we have

had party chairmen choose themselves.  Nice?                                                                                                     yyS

fla. high court puts down Pape & Chandler’s Pit Bull

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:34 am

The Florida Supreme Court decided today that use of a 1-800-PIT BULLphone number and of a logo depicting the head of a pit bull violates the States’s Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. See Florida Bar v.John Pape and Marc Chandler, Fla. Sup. Ct., Case Nos: SC04-40/SC04- 41. Nov. 17, 2005. (our prior posts here, here and there) (see AP and Reuters, Nov. 17, 2005)

The Court begins:

“In this case we impose discipline on two attorneys for their use of television advertising devices that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. These devices, which invoke the breed of dog known as the pit bull, demean all lawyers and thereby harm both the legal profession and the public’s trust and confidence in our system of justice.”

For your information, this is a smaller, b&w version of the logo in question:


Pape & Chandler is a two-man personal injury law firm that specializes in
motorcyclist injuries. In September 2004, the referee/judge hearing the Florida
Bar’s case against Pape & Chandler, ruled that neither the 800-PIT-BULL telephone
number, nor the firm’s pit bull logo, violated the ethical Rules of the Florida Bar,
which were found to be unconstitutional as applied in this case. The FBA was
represented by Tallahassee lawyer Barry Richard. P&C appeared pro se in all
of the proceedings.

As we stated in September 2004: Your Editor is left asking the same
question he had 30 years ago in law school: When will the profession
see that it will earn the respect of the public through the personal integrity
of lawyers and the provision of quality services for reasonable fees — not
through some phony notion of “dignity” or by treating the public like children?
(see Indiana High Court Huffs and Puffs Over P/I Ads)

in full color here . . . p&c

Here are excerpts from the Florida Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice
Barbara Pariente:

tiny check We conclude that attorneys Pape and Chandler (“the attorneys”) violated Rules Regulating
the Florida Bar 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4) by using the image of a pit bull and displaying the
term “pit bull” as part of their firm’s phone number in their commercial. Further, because the
use of an image of a pit bull and the phrase “pit bull” in the firm’s advertisement and logo does
not assist the public in ensuring that an informed decision is made prior to the selection of the
attorney, we conclude that the First Amendment does not prevent this Court from sanctioning
the attorneys based on the rule violations. We determine that the appropriate sanctions for the
attorneys’ misconduct are public reprimands and required attendance at the Florida Bar Advertising

tiny check The logo of the pit bull wearing a spiked collar and the prominent display of the phone number
1-800-PIT-BULL are more manipulative and misleading than a drawing of a fist. These advertising
devices would suggest to many persons not only that the lawyers can achieve results but also
that they engage in a combative style of advocacy. The suggestion is inherently deceptive because
there is no way to measure whether the attorneys in fact conduct themselves like pit bulls so as to
ascertain whether this logo and phone number convey accurate information.

tiny check In addition, the image of a pit bull and the on-screen display of the words “PIT-BULL” as part of the
firm’s phone number are not objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney. The referee found
that the qualities of a pit bull as depicted by the logo are loyalty, persistence, tenacity, and aggres-
siveness. We consider this a charitable set of associations that ignores the darker side of the qualities
often also associated with pit bulls: malevolence, viciousness, and unpredictability. Further, although
some may associate pit bulls with loyalty to their owners, the manner in which the pit bull is depicted
in the attorneys’ ad in this case certainly does not emphasize this association. The dog, which is
wearing a spiked collar, directly faces the viewer and is shown alone, with no indication that it is fulfilling
its traditional role as “man’s best friend.

lightning flash–
only the dog’s face
is innocent

……………………………..  Kobayashi Issa

tiny check This Court would not condone an advertisement that stated that a lawyer will get results through
combative and vicious tactics that will maim, scar, or harm the opposing party, conduct that would violate
our Rules of Professional Conduct. See, e.g., R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.4(g)-(h) (prohibiting threats to
present criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter). Yet this is precisely
the type of unethical and unprofessional conduct that is conveyed by the image of a pit bull and the display
of the 1-800-PIT-BULL phone number.

dog black

tiny check We construe the prohibitions on advertising statements that characterize the quality of lawyer services and
depictions that are false or misleading to prohibit a lawyer from advertising his or her services by suggesting
behavior, conduct, or tactics that are contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct.

tiny check Indeed, permitting this type of advertisement would make a mockery of our dedication to promoting public
trust and confidence in our system of justice. Prohibiting advertisements such as the one in this case is one
step we can take to maintain the dignity of lawyers, as well as the integrity of, and public confidence in, the
legal system. Were we to approve the referee’s finding, images of sharks, wolves, crocodiles, and piranhas
could follow. For the good of the legal profession and the justice system, and consistent with our Rules of
Professional Conduct, this type of non-factual advertising cannot be permitted. We therefore conclude that the
1-800-PIT-BULL ad aired by the attorneys violates rules 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4).

tiny check We also disagree with the referee’s conclusion that the application of rules 4-7.2(b)(3) and 4-7.2(b)(4) to
prohibit this advertisement violates the First Amendment. Lawyer advertising enjoys First Amendment protection
only to the extent that it provides accurate factual information that can be objectively verified. This thread runs
throughout the pertinent United State Supreme Court precedent.

tiny check The pit bull logo and “1-800-PIT-BULL” phone number are in marked contrast to the illustration of the Dalkon
Shield intrauterine device at issue in Zauderer, which the United States Supreme Court found to be “an accurate
representation . . . and ha[ve] no features that are likely to deceive, mislead, or confuse the reader.” 471 U.S. at
647. The Dalkon Shield illustration informed the public that the lawyer represented clients in cases involving this
device. The “pit bull” commercial produced by the attorneys in this case contains no indication that they specialize
in either dog bite cases generally or in litigation arising from attacks by pit bulls specifically. Consequently, the
logo and phone number do not convey objectively relevant information about the attorneys’ practice. Instead, the
image and words “pit bull” are intended to convey an image about the nature of the lawyers? litigation tactics.

“We conclude that an advertising device that connotes combativeness and viciousness without ooh
providing accurate and objectively verifiable factual information falls outside the protections of the First

Or, put succinctly: “Da mean dog demeans da profession (and confuses all dose consumers).”

Are you a lot prouder of your profession now? Do you feel more dignified and self-important? Is the public better protected?

update 5 PM: Tim Chinaris at SunEthics has a good summary of the opinion, and notes: “Significantly, in view of the emphasis placed on empirical support for a Bar advertising restriction in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995), the Court did not address the portion of the referee’s order that noted that the logo and phone number were not misleading, deceptive, or improperly manipulative, and that the Bar “has made no record to the contrary, as to surveys or studies of the public” (emphasis in original).


update (Nov. 20, 2005): words and a logo for the Florida Supreme Court, which excerpts an excellent editorial from The St. Petersburg Times Snarf. Growl. Meow?,” (Nov. 20, 2005) and suggests a logo for the Florida high court:


not a pit bull, but a lot of bullG

update (Nov. 22, 2005) help choose a symbol for the Florida Supreme Court

update (Nov. 23, 2005): ” pit bull ” as compliment .


update (Nov. 21, 2005) At Legal Ethics Forum, Prof. McGowan has an astute reply to

the Florida Supreme Court,making many of the points we’ve made here (more eloguently

and professorially, of course), in “Another Ridiculous Anti-Advertising Case from Florida”

(Nov. 20, 2005). Likewise, Carolyn Elefant makes some pointedly apt remarks in her “An

Ethics Decision for the Dogs, at MyShingle (Nov. 21, 2005). Carolyn reminded me that the

Georgetown University mascot Jack the Bulldog might be inappropriate for lawyers to display.

It’s a good thing I’m in retired status, because I wore my GU sweatsuit, with Jack’s tooth-

bearing head over the weekend.


GUJack Well, Justice Pariente, I’ve loved Jack the Bulldog since

my undergraduate days at Georgetown, and I’m not giving him up. (get

the poster here)


tiny check Here’s a portion of the Pape & Chandler reaction to the decision, from

their website:

“On November 17, 2005 the Florida Supreme Court rendered their decision in
the case of The Florida Bar v. Pape & Chandler. We were disappointed not only
by the result, but also by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the law
regarding the scope of their review in this case, the Florida Supreme Court’s
decision to perform its own fact-finding in the case (to make up for the lack of
facts presented by the Florida Bar at the September 14, 2004 trial of the case),
and the degree of judicial activism demonstrated by the Florida Supreme Court.
We continue to believe that neither our telephone number nor our logo contravene
the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and are convinced that the November 17,
2005 decision of the Florida Supreme Court merely reflects the fact that the
officers of the Florida Bar (an arm of the Florida Supreme Court) just do not like
the telephone number or the logo. We, once again, invite you to read Judge Herring’s
Amended Final Order, the briefs of the parties to the case, and the opinion of the
Florida Supreme Court to form your own opinion as to the propriety of the Florida
Supreme Court’s opinion.”

update (Nov. 27, 2005): Salon‘s Robert Crook analyzes FBA v. Pape & Chandler

in his inimitable manner. Crook notes, for instance:

“I mean, you could just as easily — no, much more easily — say that the U.S. Supreme Court’s late-2000 Bush v. Gore decision “demean[ed] all lawyers and thereby harm[ed] both the legal profession and the public’s trust and confidence in our system of justice.”


“But nooooooooooooo, it’s things like mascots that are the black eye on the legal “profession,” so let’s go after shit like that.

noloShark Final – sad – Update: See our post reporting that the U.S. Supreme court rejects PIT-BULL appeal (March 27, 2006)


the first snowfall
doesn’t hide it…
dog poop

mother dog
blocks with her butt…



runaway kite!

the dog also eyes it




by Kobayashi Issa

translated by David G. Lanoue

Powered by WordPress