March 17th, 2009

As Seen On Oprah! (Kinda, Sorta, Almost)

Oprah is big. I know this because my media maven wife tells me so. She has, like, a jillion fans and even more money. I’ve never actually seen her strut her stuff on her show, but a jillion fans (and even more money) can’t really be wrong, can they?

So I was flattered when Harpo Productions, Oprah’s production company, contacted me. It seems that one of her regular segments is with a Dr. Mehmet Oz, and he wanted to do a piece on medical mistakes.

So enter stage right, me. Well, not exactly me, and if you’ve seen me on TV you’d know why. No, they wanted to use some of the images from my website for the show. I have a series of x-rays in my office that show various bits of surgical equipment left behind after surgery.

And by golly those kind of images would look nice on a show about medical mistakes since TV is, after all, a visual medium. And they wanted to use my images.

Of course! I said. And who wouldn’t? And even though Oprah has said jillion dollars, I volunteered that I didn’t want any of it for the use of the x-rays. A simple thank you would be nice. I would help with what was likely to be a valuable piece for a big audience and all would be right with the world.

But Oprah had a problem, it seems, with the “thank you” part. Or at least her legal team did. I asked that my firm receive proper credit for the use of the images so that others would know their source, and if the segment or films appeared on the web, a link back to my site where the films were found.

No sirree, they said. No link. No link? I’ve dished out, and received, more than I can count. They told me it was “standard” not to link. That, of course, is complete nonsense, as you can see from sites such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, among others. Oprah offered up an “end credit,” those scrolly things that roll by at the end that no one ever sees, or on web versions an unlinked url.

OK, I said not wanting to be too much of a pain, because while the link was nice it really wasn’t that big of a deal to me. It would still be fun to write about being kinda, sorta, almost on Oprah. My x-rays would have their 15 nano-seconds of fame and I know that they would like that. And I would have helped Dr. Oz spread the word about real medical problems and mistakes and yada, yada, yada.

But even that seemed to be a problem for Oprah. Because part of the license agreement was this wonderful little bit that I’ll summarize: We (Oprah) get to use your x-rays. And you (Turkewitz) get to surrender your First Amendment rights to discuss that fact. In other words, I get to pay them to use my material. Not with cash, but with good old fashioned rights. What a deal!

Here is the actual language, paragraph eight, from the license agreement that they wanted me to sign:

Licensor acknowledges and agrees that it shall not and cannot use Harpo’s name or logos or Ms. Winfrey’s name, voice, picture or likeness for any advertising or promotional purposes without first obtaining the written permission of Harpo relating to the Material. Specifically, Licensor agrees not to use Harpo’s name or trademarks, Ms. Winfrey’s name or likeness, or a quote from Ms. Winfrey or the Program on Licensor’s website, in any Licensor-related publication, in connection with the marketing or advertising of Licensor or in connection with any book, blog, or other publication, product or service (including digital transmissions such as the internet or other on-line computer communication services) relating to Licensor. Further, Licensor hereby agrees not to use the phrase “As seen on Oprah”, or similar statements, in any promotional or advertising material it creates or on its website.

OK, so they want to use my stuff and they don’t want me to talk about it or even mention Oprah’s holy name or use her image.

But there was one last avenue to explore — because after all, this would have been fun — and that last avenue was the part about obtaining written permission. So I told them I had every intention of blogging about it. Great!, they said, what did you want to write? Umm, since the show hasn’t aired, how could I possibly know? Does Oprah review a book that she hasn’t yet read?

And that, my friends, was the end of that. Over several weeks and a couple dozen emails with three different people from Harpo working on this little project, they successfully overlawyered the issue to death. I know what you’re thinking, her career will probably hit the skids as a result.

Now I don’t mind being played for a fool, but that’s only if the foolster happens to be my offspring, and I’m even willing to bend that rule if the foolster is merely a friend of the offspring. I’m game to ask why the chicken and all manner of other critters crossed the road, and to laugh at assorted knock, knock jokes, though I generally draw the line at the 9th iteration.

But I don’t really care to be played for a fool by Oprah, no matter how big a shot she may be.

The licensing agreement, never signed, is here: /Oprah-Harpo.pdf

 

March 11th, 2009

BigLaw Associates "are overworked and underpaid" (You Gotta Be Kidding Me!) – Updated!

When I saw that quote at PrawfsBlawg I couldn’t believe it was real. But there it was staring at me in all its bizarre glory from prof Eric Johnson (via ABAJournal):

“Associates at big law firms are perfectly suited to unionize. They are overworked and underpaid. And partners utterly depend on them. If associates actually used their latent collective bargaining power, it seems to me they could extract huge concessions from partners.”

I haven’t visited the issue of BigLaw salaries in awhile. After all, with associates being laid off by the thousands it didn’t seem right to rub it in. What they need are tips on interviewing or resume writing, and here is a law professor stating that they should unionize to demand more?

Two years ago I noted that starting associates were starting at $160,000, plus giant bonuses, and lots of holiday swag, and then went on to $180K, and were thus clobbering the salaries of New York state judges who remained stuck at $136K and federal judges who were getting $162K (without a juicy bonus). (And last year former Chief Judge Judith Kaye finally brought a lawsuit over the fact that NY judges were actually going backwards, since they don’t even get a cost of living increase.)

And starting associates, of course, can’t even do much. The first year of practicing law might as well be called an apprenticeship. Who would trust a first year with any real project for a big corporate client unless there was significant (read “time-intensive”) oversight? Pretty much the same is true for many second years. How many first or second year “litigators,” for example, are trusted to take the deposition of anyone higher than a mail clerk?

Back in December 2007 Scott Greenfield wrote:

First year associates are near useless as lawyers. They are incapable of producing useful legal work, and at best churn out wasteful hours of memos stating the obvious at great length in order to produce the requisite number of hours. Sure, they think they’re doing a bang-up job, but that’s only because they have no clue of the utility of their efforts.

Still, somebody is paying for this time. Hour by hour, there is a client being billed somewhere for some kid to carry a briefcase around the hallway. It must be just fine with Biglaw clients to pay some top partner $1000+ an hour on top of a posse of kids following her around, nipping at her heels, fetching coffee and taking notes, so that every hour of actual legal work ends up costing the Biglaw clients $3,750.

BigLaw was getting the BigBucks because General Counsels figured no one would ever blame them for losing a case if they paid top dollar.

And what happened to BigLaw with the oodles of money and perks they were throwing around? A big-time contraction. Their clients, it seems, decided that in a Great Recession it might be wise to watch the bottom line, and shelling out piles of dough to BigLaw so they could bill out young associates at ridiculous hourly rates no longer seemed like such a hot idea.

And Johnson thinks they are underpaid? If by underpaid he meant outrageously overpaid, he might have a point, though that point is likely lost on those lining up for unemployment. I’m guessing there aren’t too many judges, for example, who would think a first year associate that still has his or her job at BigLaw is underpaid. Nor any of the millions in jeopardy of losing homes to foreclosure. Does there exist some constitutional right to be paid $200+K per year while still being carried in a Snugli?

BigLaw, it seems, had overpaid its associates in a big, bad way while those firms suckled at the beautiful towers of corporate giants. But now reality is setting in, the teat’s been covered, and associates are being told in 50 different ways to leave. If they were underpaid, why are so many desperate to hold on to those positions?

It would be a fairly safe theory to say that one reason for the massive contraction in BigLaw today is that they had overpaid for the legal talent they hired and were too late to realize it. Many of us — the practitioners of law as opposed to the ivory towerists — had already known that. It sure is an odd time to suggest to BigLaw associates terrified of discharge that this would be a good time to put the screws to the boss and demand more money.

The safe cocoon of academia must feel very nice. End rant.

Update! OK, that rant felt good. But I just noticed that the bit was written in February 2008, not 2009. D’oh! Nevertheless, the fact remains that BigLaw associates aren’t exactly an exploited class working under treacherous conditions, though I suppose heart disease from long stressful hours and and take-out food could be a dangerous workplace environment. Of course, they’d get that anyway if they hung their own shingles.

 

March 3rd, 2009

My Wife. The Blogger. (And Tips to Get A Job)


My household now has a second blogger, as Mrs. NYPILB stakes out her own small corner of the interwebs. Her subject? Both the traditional and digital media industry that she worked in as an executive for over 10 years, and where she has been head-hunting (a/k/a recruiting) and resume writing for many more.

While her business may be media, out-of-work lawyers take note: Interview techniques and resume writing styles cross boundaries. So here are a couple of worthy posts from her nascent site, Let’s Talk Turkey Media Blog, for the BigLaw associate who just hit the unemployment line:

Some Interview Doozies and Don’t-zies (8 Interview Tips) (2/27/09)

One Page or Two? The Visual Aspects of a Good Resume (3/3/09)

There ain’t nothing wrong with free advice that comes from the real world of experience.

 

February 17th, 2009

Happy Mother’s Day!


A big Happy Mother’s Day to Mrs. NYPILB. Yes, I know what you’re thinking; this isn’t the day that Hallmark and the florists have decided should be a generic, randomly selected, Mother’s Day.

No, this day is more important. It’s the day she did a lot of hard work to bring our first into the world. (Happy Birthday, Sweet Pea!)

Why people insist on using the Hallmark day is beyond me, when actual birth days are vastly more significant.

For Mother’s Day Mrs. NYPILB got a few chocolate-dipped strawberries I made this morning, while the kid got the party over the weekend. Perhaps the Mrs. could have done better than a few strawberries, but she married me.

Links to this post:

mothers’ day on law blogs
send links to your mothers’ day posts to [email protected] and we’ll note them here: eric turkewitz at the new york personal injury law blog was the first to say, “happy mothers’ day!” diane levin at mediationchannel.com reminds us
posted by Editor @ May 10, 2009 5:08 PM

 

February 9th, 2009

Can Alex "A-Roid" Rodriguez Be Sued by 2003 MVP Runner-Up Carlos Delgado?

The question came to me from my brother via email, and I confess not to know the answer. But the question sure is intriguing.

Yankee superstar Alex Rodriguez admitted today that he used steroids in 2001-2003 while playing for the Texas Rangers. In one of those years, 2003 he took the MVP title. He said at the time:

“It means the world to me…I’m so proud. It really is a validation to all the hard work and dedication.”

Right. Validation for hard work. OK. Moving on to the ramifications.

Those titles usually carry big, fat bonuses with them. A-Roid picked up a $500,000 bonus after he won the award getting six first place votes from the Baseball Writers Association, which decides such titles, among his 240-vote total. And in second place was Carlos Delgado with five first place votes among his 190-vote total. I think it’s fair to say that A-Roid would not have received those votes if the writers knew he was getting a little chemical help.

Delgado, it seems, has a very credible claim he was cheated out of the MVP award which, depending on the nature of his contract, could have been worth a small fortune for the win. But it’s not just bonus money at stake; he probably would have received larger future contracts. There’s a lot of money in being #1.

So can Delgado bring a successful suit? Anyone with an answer?

Some sites covering the story:

  • What To Make Of A-Rod’s Admission That He Used Steroids (Fan IQ Blog)

    Well, rather then take the long, lawsuit-infested road to eventual full discovery that he did in fact use steroids, Alex Rodriguez today just decided to openly admit he used PEDs for three years as a Texas Ranger. And thankfully he didn’t say that he accidentally “ingested” something.

  • A-Rod’s Confession Is Solid Move (MLB Fanhouse)

    But regardless of the forthcoming repercussions — and there will be plenty — A-Rod’s confession on national television will go down in history as a well orchestrated public relations move. I’m serious.

  • How do you punish A-Rod? (Dallas Morning News)

    How do you do anything to admitted steroid user Alex Rodriguez? It’s no wonder he came clean. There is absolutely nothing that Major League Baseball will do.

  • ARoid: Alex Rodriguez Confesses to Steroid Use but Leak of 2003 Test May Have Been Criminal (Findlaw)

    Over the weekend, New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez was identified as having tested positive for steroid use in 2003. Today, he admitted to using performance enhancing drugs from 2001 to 2003. While the highest paid player in baseball history may suffer permanent damage to his legacy, the leak of his positive test in 2003 may have been a crime.

  • Playing Defense Against A-Rod’s Incomplete Contract (Dan Hoffman @ Concurring Opinions)

    Sometimes it’s tough to find a legal angle on the latest micro-scandal. Not so with the revelations that the hated Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.

  • MLB Great Debates: Is Alex Rodriguez’s Admitted Use of Steroids a Big Deal? (MLB Outsider)

    Fans seem to feel that cheating somehow belittles the accomplishments of past greats whose numbers no longer hold up. But when exactly did cheating in baseball start?