{"id":4279,"date":"2005-12-17T11:52:37","date_gmt":"2005-12-17T15:52:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/12\/17\/pape-chandler-will-seek-certi"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:19","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:19","slug":"pape-chandler-will-seek-certiorari-for-their-pit-bull","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/12\/17\/pape-chandler-will-seek-certiorari-for-their-pit-bull\/","title":{"rendered":"Pape & Chandler will seek certiorari for their Pit Bull"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n


\n
A month ago, the Florida Supreme Court <\/FONT>ruled<\/FONT><\/A> that attorneys <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
John Pape and Marc Chandler<\/FONT><\/A> acted unethically by using a <\/DIV>
\n
pit bull logo and an 800-PIT-BULL phone number in marketing <\/DIV>
\n
their services to persons injured in motor cycle accidents.  The <\/DIV>
\n
Court said the Pit Bull image demeaned<\/EM> the legal profession.  <\/DIV>
\n
Consumer and First Amendment advocates, legal<\/FONT><\/A> ethics<\/FONT><\/A> experts<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/DIV>
\n
and the<\/FONT><\/A> public<\/FONT><\/A> in general<\/FONT><\/A>, replied scornfully<\/FONT><\/A> to the Court’s argument <\/DIV>
\n
and hoped Pape & Chandler<\/FONT> would take the case to the United <\/DIV>
\n
States Supreme Court. (see our prior post<\/FONT><\/A>, which collects many <\/DIV>
\n
links) <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
\"dog<\/DIV><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Marc Chandler has informed f\/k\/a<\/EM> that Pape & Chandler won’t just heel <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and whimper.  Instead, <\/FONT>they have hired <\/FONT>Rodney A. Smolla<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT>Dean<\/FONT><\/A> of the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Richmond School <\/FONT>of Law and well-known First Amendment <\/FONT>author<\/FONT><\/A> and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
advocate, to <\/FONT>seek<\/FONT> review of the case at our nation’s highest court.  [In <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
2003, <\/FONT>Smolla successfully represented the respondent in <\/FONT>Virginia v. Black<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
538 U.S. 343, a cross-burning case.] <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Of course, the certiorari<\/EM> hurdle is always great, but I’d be interested <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in hearing predictions on how the various Justices might vote, should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
they take the case.  Would the Court conclude that pious notions of<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“dignity” only make the legal profession look silly and are inadequate <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
reasons for limiting commercial speech and First Amendment rights <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of lawyers and consumers?<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
christmas morning<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the old retriever gets<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all the innards<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
            ed markowski<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
not much afternoon left–<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
his dog runs loose<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ahead of him<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
“dogHouseN”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
letting<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the dog out–<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the stars in<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
distant thunder–<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the dog’s toenails click<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
against the linoleum<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Gary Hotham<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> from <\/FONT>breathmarks: haiku to read in the dark<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(<\/FONT>Canon Press<\/FONT><\/A>, 1999)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
brand new snowbank<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the neighbor’s dog <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
makes a deposit<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
      dagosan<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> Here’s a smaller, b&w version of the <\/FONT>logo<\/FONT><\/A> in question:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

\"pitBullLogo\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n
fresh scent–<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
   the labrador’s muzzle<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
        deeper into the snow<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n
Christmas morning—
bird dog in the stubblefield
chasing sparrows<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
    Lee Gurga<\/FONT><\/STRONG> from <\/FONT>Fresh Scent<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (1998) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                                \"dog<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A month ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that attorneys John Pape and Marc Chandler acted unethically by using a pit bull logo and an 800-PIT-BULL phone number in marketing their services to persons injured in motor cycle accidents.  The Court said the Pit Bull image demeaned the legal profession.   Consumer and First Amendment advocates, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-171","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4279"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12864,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279\/revisions\/12864"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}