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-
marketing campaign. (see Did This “Dream Team” Ever Take Antitrust 101?)
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
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.
“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.”
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.
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
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
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
November 3, 2005
three law firms give up their “Dream Team” joint p/i ads
Comments Off on three law firms give up their “Dream Team” joint p/i ads
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.