{"id":4196,"date":"2005-11-03T19:12:42","date_gmt":"2005-11-03T23:12:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/11\/03\/three-law-firms-give-up-their"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:26","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:26","slug":"three-law-firms-give-up-their-dream-team-joint-pi-ads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/11\/03\/three-law-firms-give-up-their-dream-team-joint-pi-ads\/","title":{"rendered":"three law firms give up their “Dream Team” joint p\/i ads"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

<\/P>
\n

On August 4, 2003, ethicalEsq <\/EM>offered a bit of free antitrust advice to four lawyers, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from three NY Capital Region law firms, who were about to launch a giant joint-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
marketing campaign.  (see <\/FONT>Did This “Dream Team” Ever Take Antitrust 101?<\/FONT><\/A>) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Calling themselves The Dream Team, the already-successful and high-profile p\/i <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lawyers were on tv screens and billboards for several months.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
The self-proclaimed “Dream Team” included: <\/FONT>E. Stewart Jones<\/FONT><\/A> from Troy, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Steve Coffey<\/FONT><\/A> and Tom DiNovo of Albany’s <\/FONT>O’Connell & Aronowitz<\/FONT><\/A>, and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Dreyer Boyajian LLP<\/FONT><\/A>‘s <\/FONT>Donald Boyajian<\/FONT><\/A>.  <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                                                                               \"napper<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
We’ve been wondering what happened to The Dream Team — whose individual <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
firms have been again advertising separately — and the answer came in an article <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
this Sunday from the Albany Times Union<\/EM> — “<\/FONT>Lawyer team’s dream ended<\/FONT><\/A> in squab-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ble over ad’s wording,” by Carol DeMare, Oct. 30, 2005)   As the article explains:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“The Dream Team lasted only three or four months. The Com-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
mittee <\/FONT>on Professional Standards, which monitors attorneys’ conduct, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
questioned the advertisement and “said it could be misleading,” <\/FONT>Coffey <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
said Friday. The committee told the lawyers that “people might not be <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sure if they were getting three firms or one firm,” Coffey said.  . . . <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“To avoid confusion, the commercials began carrying a disclaimer that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
only one of the three firms would be involved with a case, chosen on a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
revolving basis, Coffey said. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"erasingS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“Initially, the committee appeared satisfied. “But then they called back <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and said, ‘No, we don’t think your disclaimer will work. We don’t think <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Dream Team of three firms will work,”‘ Coffey said.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
According to Coffey, it was a “successful campaign” with “a tremendous amount <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of feedback. . . It was very well received, people liked it, were very happy with it.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Nonetheless, Team members decided not to appeal the issue to the Appellate <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Division of the Supreme Court, despite Coffey wanting to challenge it “on the basis <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of First Amendment right of freedom of association.”  Coffey continued: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“I thought we had the right to do it. I didn’t think it was misleading at <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all and, if so, we could correct it. But, overall, we made a business <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
decision that it wasn’t worth it.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“It was a concept as far as I know never adopted by anyone else <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the country, a great concept.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                                                                            \"ooh\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Well, we don’t think this will help the Dream Team’s image — three law firms with<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
hard-hitting tv ads and tough images, who <\/FONT>can’t find the gumption to defend their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
purported constitutional <\/FONT>rights in order to protect a successful marketing tool.  For <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the reasons we gave two years ago, we believe there were plenty of antitrust issues <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
surrounding the joint venture that needed to be cleared up.  In addition, there was <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
indeed a great potential for consumer confusion.   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
The team mates obviously didn’t <\/FONT>have enough faith in the project to continue their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
fight.  I think that’s the best result <\/FONT>for Capital Region consumers, and I hope law <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
firms in other areas see this outcome <\/FONT>and decide this “great concept” needs to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
remain a dream rather than a reality.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny  f\/k\/a’s Honored Guest Poets aren’t rivals.  But, any pair of them <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
clearly constitute a haiku Dream Team.  Here are Peggy Lyles<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and paul m<\/EM>, to prove my point:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
witnessing his will<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the frost-hatched<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pane<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
chalk dust <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the eraser trough<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
autumn chill<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"blackboard<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
yellow leaves<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a girl plays hopscotch<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
by herself <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Peggy Lyles<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT>To Hear the Rain<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> (Brooks Books, 2002)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
fallen leaves<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the rusty wheelbarrow<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
heavy with stones<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
coming nor’easter<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all the coins<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
younger than me<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
\"penny   \"penny<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
we walk in silence<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a sea stone<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
not there at high tide<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
paul m<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“fallen leaves” – <\/FONT>finding the way<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> <\/EM>(Press Here, 2002)<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“coming” & “we walk” – Roadrunner Haiku Journal<\/EM> <\/FONT>V:2<\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n