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
finito con “scalito” — it’s a silly sobriquet
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 portmanteau — Scalia and Alito), to be
inappropriate in a serious public debate.
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
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.
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”
Comments Off on finito con “scalito” — it’s a silly sobriquet