You are on page 1of 1



1. 800. 973.1177

Inside Legal Blogs
[By Jeff] This week, we will shake the law blog tree and see what falls out. Each edition of Inside Legal Blogs is chock-full of hearty nutrients and bloggily goodness. It’s just like mom used to make. Open wide. We are about to serve up another sloppy spoonful of blogtastic news.

A few weeks back, we mentioned Florida attorneys John Robert Pape and Marc Andrew Chandler, who were reprimanded by the Florida Bar board of governors for their use of a sleepy-eyed cartoon pit bull in advertisements for their law firm. Now the Florida Bar is ready to take Miami attorneys Brett and Mitchell Panter to task, according to David Giacalone’s legal ethics and poetry blog f/k/a… . The Panters (of the firm Panter, Panter & Sampredo) use on their website the image of a pair of silhouetted panthers (get it?), but they could find themselves in hot water with the Bar over allegations of deceptive, misleading, or manipulative advertising. f/k/a… says that a representative of the Florida Bar claimed to be investigating the panthers and whether or not the panther is more or less threatening than the pit bull. According to that Bar representative, a lion’s head on an advertisement would not constitute deceptive, misleading, or manipulative advertising; but the image of a panther might. Clearly, however, a lion would win in a fight against a pit bull (and presumably a panther, as well). I’d rather see the Florida Bar step in to explain the difference between a panther and a puma (not the shoe). I mean, is there a difference? Speaking of ads and lawyers, a battle is being waged over the Institute for Legal Reform’s big honking billboards that take aim at trial attorneys in Chicago. The billboards, which feature a man’s mouth stuffed with cash, say “Please Don’t Feed the Trial Attorneys. Lawsuit Abuse Hurts Illinois. Support Legal Reform.” The Overlawyered blog was pleased with the ad. They say frivolous lawsuits have damaged the judicial system and shady lawyers

have made a mockery of the legal profession. A guest blogger at Evan Schaeffer’s Legal

because he knows the authors’ claims to be true. A really cool techno-blogabilly development related to healthcare law popped up last week on the Healthcare Law Blog in response to an idea from Shahaid Shah over at The Healthcare

Underground wrote that the billboard does more to damage the legal profession. The anonymous blogger said that the billboard was insulting and inflammatory. Ted Frank at Overlawyered said get over it to the anonoblogger, asserting that the billboard is just holding a mirror up to society. In response, Evan Schaeffer wrote that beyond just being obnoxious, the billboard is designed to trick jurors into throwing out lawsuits. Overlawyered bit back, stating that the text of the billboard would lead one to believe it is intended for voters, not jurors. The argument over the billboard is much more entertaining than the billboard itself. So far, it has been a fair and polite debate, unfortunately. I’m hoping to see some mud properly slung.
From Michael McCann of the Sports Law Blog comes an analysis of Barry Bonds’ lawsuit against the authors of the book Game of

IT Guy. Shah suggested the use of RSS feeds,
common in delivering wireless blog updates, for health alerts from doctors. Things are getting pretty sci-fi nowadays. If you walk out on the street, you’re likely to see a few yahoos walking around with those Star Trek cell phone transceivers in their ears. Panasonic just unveiled a 03-inch plasma-screen TV that probably requires having a wall knocked out of your house in order to install it. Speaking of sci-fi, Tom Cruise and John Holmes had their baby. Prior to the birth, Tom had claimed (apparently in a joking fashion?) that he would eat the placenta. This prompted a discussion of placentas on the premier law and maternity blog, The Mommy Blawg. In Hawaii, state legislators passed a law allowing parents to keep the placenta to do with as they wish; but in California, you must have a hazardous-material license to transport the placenta home. Come on, California. We must not allow a placenta gap! Thanks for reading our bourgeois little law blog buffet. Next week, we’ll look back at this week’s developments in the law blogosphere, pausing briefly to admire the changing foliage along the way. Oh, I almost forgot. As a reminder for all absent-minded stoners, last week was 4/20, in case you missed it.

Shadows, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. In the book, they claim the slugger used steroids. Bonds is not suing for libel, he is suing for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. He accuses the authors of inappropriately obtaining grand jury testimony for the book. The defendants will undoubtedly use the case to get Bonds to cop to the drug charges, but the Sport Law Blog sees the lawsuit as almost an admission of guilt on Bonds’ part because he didn’t sue for libel (he sued for unfair competition). While it is seemingly easier for a plaintiff to win in an unfair competition case than a libel case, especially a celebrity plaintiff, the Sports Law Blog wonders if Bonds didn’t sue for libel