---

September 28, 2007

Law Firms Go a Bit Hollywood to Recruit the YouTube Generation

By KAREN DONOVAN

Law firms have discovered YouTube.

Well, actually, they have discovered that the law students they are trying to recruit as summer associates watch YouTube, the popular video Web site.

Several firms are trying to parlay that discovery into a hiring tool, creating recruiting videos and Web sites with the look and feel of YouTube. The firms hope to persuade students that their lawyers, and by extension the firms, are young-thinking and hip.

The need to attract top-notch summer associates is crucial; they are the pool from which most new hires are made. More than 19,000 graduates join law firms each year.

So far, the firms’ efforts have run the gamut from simple conversations with summer associates to videos promoting the firm’s expertise or its diversity.

“The videos are still kind of in the early days,” said Brian Dalton, the senior law editor at Vault Reports, which ranks law firms. “A lot of them come off seeming like hostage videos.”

There are exceptions. Choate Hall & Stewart, a Boston firm with about 200 lawyers and more than 100 years of history, has developed a series inspired by the “Mac vs. PC” advertisements from Apple. Rather than associates, actors are used in the Choate ads.

In four spots called “Choate vs. Megafirm,” a hapless male associate at Megafirm is seen variously trying to find his briefcase in one of his employer’s many offices; tied up in boat rope, explaining that the firm placed him in “leveraged lease and ship financing” when he really wanted litigation; and clad in a business suit, pants rolled up, with an inner tube around his waist, on his “working” vacation.

His counterpart, a young female associate at Choate, is rather smug as she explains how life there is different. Just as on YouTube, there are ratings — albeit fake — like the one from a Web poster with the handle, “Jdhound,” who writes, “This are like so professional. Our site not.”

The Choate videos were created by Greenfield Belser, a Washington marketing firm that specializes in law firms. Its president, Burkey Belser, decided to parody the Apple ads in part because of a limited budget. The firm charged Choate $75,000 for the 4 ads and 20 testimonials from 9 summer associates and other lawyers.

Mr. Belser said that he coached the Choate associates to whittle their testimonials to 30 seconds, told from a red-leather armchair meant to tie in with the firm’s choice of red as a branding color. In one testimonial, the law student talks about his participation in a Swedish folk trio; another student talks about her college thesis, on horror films.

In contrast, the recruiting site at Morrison & Foerster of San Francisco challenges law students, asking if they have the “mojo” needed to join the firm.

The site was revamped last year by a finance partner, Anna T. Pinedo, who said the previous version “was boring.”

One link under “achievements” draws the firm’s definition of a phenomenon it calls “rankophilia.” It offers law students the chance to make their own ranks, from ugliest vegetables to most addictive snack foods. The most popular with students? Ugly vegetables.

At Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, a Los Angeles firm where flip-flops are acceptable footwear, attempts to be hip backfired just a bit.

The firm started a Web site, which, among other things, was to feature “A Day in the Life of an Associate.”

The video told the story of Ivey, a young brunette, who is first seen as she develops photos in her darkroom and plays Ultimate Frisbee. Ivey (really an actress) says she has a B.A. from Yale and a J.D. from Stanford, and is seen wearing a form-fitting jersey shirt, blue jeans and chunky necklaces as she consults with the partners.

But when the Web site went live last week, the video did not appear.

“Some of the associates, some of the partners, thought it was too contrived; maybe corny was probably a better word,” said A. William Urquhart, the firm’s hiring partner.

In contrast, associate testimonials at Ropes & Gray, a Boston-based firm, are strictly about the job. The five segments, each a montage of voices lasting about three minutes, begins with one associate intoning, “People with small problems don’t come to Ropes & Gray.” (The firm has about 850 lawyers in five cities in the United States.)

A tool that students have often used in deciding where to apply is Vault.com, which ranks the most prestigious firms, based on Web responses of associates.

At one firm on the list, Sullivan & Cromwell, 16 videos featuring conversations from lawyers appear on the site. Each is a three-minute montage, filmed by Muffie Meyer, a documentary maker whose work has appeared on PBS.

“Law students sometimes have this idea that large prestigious Wall Street firms are filled with the same sort of person,” said Frederic C. Rich, the partner who oversaw the making of the videos.

The videos are meant to telegraph the variety of people who work there. Mr. Rich appears in one video talking about the oratorio he conducted in a conference room at the firm.

In another video, Joseph C. Shenker, the firm’s vice chairman, an observant Jew and a Brooklyn native who graduated from City University of New York, says he does not have the pedigree one would associate with an old-line firm. “The only thing people care about here is the pursuit of excellence,” he says, in conversation with Lisa A. Lofdahl, a lawyer who talks about being openly gay.

Norm Rubenstein of the Zeughauser Group and former marketing officer at three law firms, said the videos were interesting because they aim at “a generation that takes the Web for granted, that values Internet-based social networking.”

“That’s what makes the video ‘conversations’ on the Sullivan site or the mock commercials on Choate’s site so compelling,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Compared to the traditional iteration of marquee clients, major deals and disputes, these express true personality in ways that are memorable.”

Can't keep engagement ring if wedding called off, court says

By SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writer

Don't hock that engagement ring just yet.

If you don't get married, you're not entitled to keep the ring, the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Monday.

In a ruling that appears to be the first appellate decision of its kind in the state, the court said that if the wedding is canceled, the person who gave the engagement ring is entitled to get it back.

"In summary, we hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage, and as such, is impliedly a conditional gift," the unanimous opinion, written by Judge Charles D. Susano, said.

If the marriage doesn't take place, "the engagement ring goes back to the one who gave it."

The decision stems from a legal battle over an engagement ring that began in a Knox County court. The ruling involves a woman who is a reporter for WSMV in Nashville.

On Christmas Day 2005, Jason Crippen placed an engagement ring on Catharyn Campbell's finger and proposed marriage.

After the couple broke up, Crippen asked for the ring back; Campbell would not give it to him.

The opinion doesn't describe the ring or give its value.

Crippen's attorney, Adam Priest of Knoxville, said he couldn't give the value of the ring without permission from his client.

Crippen sued Campbell to get the ring back, but a Knox County circuit judge said she was entitled to keep it because it was a gift.

Campbell would not comment after the ruling Monday, but her attorney said he was disappointed that the appeals court didn't consider the ring a gift.

"I believe this gift took on unique and special meaning considering it was a Christmas Day gift," attorney James K. Scott said.

The Court of Appeals ordered Campbell to return the ring.

Google Earth Costs Navy $600,000 !!!

Woops! Which unlucky person designed this building? This military base, that looks shockingly like a swastika, has caused outrage in the U.S. The naval barracks in Coronado, California, are made up of four ‘L’ shaped buildings that look like the hated Nazi symbol from the sky.

Navy bosses are to spend £300,000 to disguise the offensive design. The buildings were built in the 1960s and from the ground the controversial pattern cannot be seen. It was spotted by internet users looking at Google Earth who alerted government officials to the gaffe.

The Navy have said they will alter the walkways joining the building and add landscaping and rooftop solar panels to camouflage the sign. “We don’t want to be associated with something as symbolic and hateful as a swastika,” said Navy spokesman Scott Sutherland.

Spin this: Hollywood PR guru passes torch at her firm

Pat Kingsley will step down as chief executive to devote more time to her clients.

Pat Kingsley and Tom Cruise
By Lorenza Muñoz
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 27, 2007

Pat Kingsley, the grande dame of Hollywood spin, is stepping down as chairwoman and chief executive of the public relations firm she led for nearly three decades.

Kingsley's position at PMK/HBH will be assumed by partners Cindi Berger, who began her career as a receptionist in the firm's New York office 24 years ago, and Simon Halls, who was a founding partner of Huvane Baum Halls before it merged with PMK in 2001. Nate Schreiber, the firm's executive vice president of brands and events, has been promoted to president.

Kingsley, 75, said she wanted to focus on working more closely with her clients, including director Michael Mann and stars Will Smith and Jodie Foster, rather than managing the multimillion-dollar firm that has expanded beyond its core film and television businesses.

The agency, which Kingsley co-founded in 1980, rakes in more than $15 million a year, up from its initial $1.5 million annually, according to company executives. In 1999, PMK was purchased by Interpublic Group, a global marketing corporation that also owns publicity firms Rogers & Cowan and Bragman Nyman Cafarelli.

Although she insists that she is not retiring any time soon, this move in effect passes the torch to her younger colleagues.

"Business projections and financial reports are not what I enjoy doing most," Kingsley said. "I took accounting in college and my instructor suggested that I not continue the course. We are now a conglomerate and it's daunting. I want to be involved in the creative aspects of working with clients. That is what I enjoy."

PMK in recent years has taken on corporate clients such as American Express Co. and Reebok International Ltd., sports figures including Olympic downhill skier Bode Miller and musical acts like the Dixie Chicks. It was Berger who led the effort to recast the Chicks' image as a mainstream pop/country band that stood for freedom of speech when the country-and-western music establishment turned against them after lead singer Natalie Maines made a remark critical of President Bush.

"Now that there are three of us, there is three times more energy to grow the company in different areas," Halls said. "Pat Kingsley gave us a huge leg up. We are lucky we get to expand from what is already a huge business."

At the zenith of her power, Kingsley was feared for her tough negotiating tactics and respected for advising clients on topics others might fear to broach. For 14 years, Kingsley represented Tom Cruise and she consistently advised him not to mix his controversial beliefs as a Scientologist with his career. When Cruise fired her in 2004, he became embroiled in a firestorm of bad press after publicly touting his religion, criticizing Brooke Shields for taking antidepressants and appearing out of control as he jumped on Oprah Winfrey's couch during an interview.

Three years ago, Kingsley also made headlines when she unceremoniously fired longtime partner Leslee Dart. Dart, who presided over PMK's New York office, was passed over as Kingsley's heir apparent. Dart now runs her own company, 42West, and still represents such clients as Martin Scorsese and Nicole Kidman.

"Pat taught me how to up my game," said Halls, whose specialty was launching up-and-coming talents such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Russell Crowe. "She exposed us on how you do a film campaign from soup to nuts."

Intellectual property laws abused in quest to shutdown Lowes-Sucks.com

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: September 26, 2007 - 01:05PM CT

The tagline for home improvement superstore Lowe's may be "Let's Build Something Together," but that "something" sure isn't good PR when it comes to dealing with public criticism online. One angry customer was so dissatisfied with Lowe's work and customer service that he was spurred into putting up a web site called Lowes-Sucks.com in order to air his grievances. Lowe's was unhappy with this public display of dissatisfaction and took a "creative" approach to getting him to take it down—accusations of trademark infringement. After a bit of back and forth, Lowe's has relented by making an offer to settle out of court, but has suddenly fallen silent upon the customer's counteroffer.

Let's back up a little bit. Lowe's customer and Ars Technica reader, Allen Harkleroad, had a fence installed at his home by a Lowe's "professional." Upon further inspection, however, Harkleroad discovered that the $3,500 job came complete with what he considered to be shoddy workmanship. Fence posts were loose, parts became easily disjointed, and the gate door did not fully close, among other things. Harkleroad said that his dogs were able to escape several times, and that when he complained to customer service, he was told that the installer would need to come back out to fix the fence. When he called the installer, he said that Lowe's had to tell him to go fix the fence. Harkleroad decided that he would refuse to pay the remainder of his balance until the situation was fixed, but Lowe's was having none of that. The billing department told him that it wasn't their problem and proceeded to turn Harkleroad's account over to collections.

It was at this point that Lowes-Sucks.com was born, but Lowe's was having none of that either. Last week, Harkleroad received a cease-and-desist letter from the company, accusing him of unauthorized use of the company's intellectual property on his site. "Your use of the Lowe's Marks and your registration of www.Lowes-sucks.com is unauthorized by LF, distorts the goodwill of LF's federally-registered trademarks, and constitutes infringement of LF's trademark rights," reads the letter signed by Lowe's trademark manager Rebecca Green. Part of the problem with this accusation is that Harkleroad's site contains absolutely no logos, graphics, or other "marks" from Lowe's, and otherwise would not be identifiable as being related to Lowe's at all except for the name in the URL and the content of the site itself (which is unlikely to be mistaken for the company's official web site).

Harkleroad also points out that the infringement notice failed to identify the alleged trademark infringements, and fails to recognize that the site is a parody. "I also might remind you that USC 15 1125(a) is in correct [sic] in regards to your claim of infringement, you need to come up with something better than that. Better go grab that US Code book you are referring from and find something that you believe matches more closely," wrote Harkleroad in response to the letter.

At that point, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) hopped on Harkleroad's side to provide legal counsel and help defend him against what he claims were abuses of the law in an attempt to bully him—the story was also picked up by a number of online news outlets. Suddenly, Lowe's attorneys made Harkleroad an offer on Monday to settle the issue out-of-court, which Harkleroad discussed optimistically on his site. "My thanks to Lowe's for allowing us to (possibly) come to a mutually acceptable agreement for both parties, that is of course if this all gets finalized as I do believe it will. If it does this will be the last post or comment I make about the issue on this web site," he wrote.

But that's apparently where the story has ground to a halt once again. Harkleroad tells Ars that he and his attorney made a counteroffer to the settlement, and have since not heard back. "I think they are thinking that for the most part the issue is over," he told us. He has declined to comment on the details of the offer and counteroffer, but Harkleroad says that he has not heard any word back for several days.

Harkelroad's attorney, EFF staff attorney Corynne McSherry, acknowledged that the two parties are in discussions about a settlement, but declined to provide details as the "discussions are confidential." She did, however, point out that the courts have been clear that "gripe sites like this are protected—in fact, they want people to speak freely and share information about their experiences with various companies." She said that trademark holders sometimes lose sight of the point of trademark law, which is to protect consumers and provide them with good information about a company's product. Sites like Lowes-Sucks.com provide information on someone's consumer experience, she said, which is not only allowed under trademark law, but protected by the First Amendment. "There is no legal question here that they don't have a trademark claim," McSherry told Ars.

This isn't the first time companies have attempted to use some arbitrary aspects of intellectual property law to silence public criticism online. Universal Music Group sent DMCA takedown notices to YouTube over a highly critical video of rapper Akon was posted by Michelle Malkin—eventually the EFF got involved and the clip was restored to YouTube. The EFF also filed a lawsuit against "paranormalist" Uri Geller for sending DMCA takedown notices over videos that were not created by him, but by another company that had created a documentary that was critical of his work and posted it to YouTube.

So what is the lesson to be learned in all of this? While Harkleroad's case with Lowe's is not quite over, it appears as if the company is backing off of its trademark infringement claims (Harkleroad notes on his web site that the issue of officially retracting the claim is still being worked out between the attorneys). But the attempt to even make such a claim is still troubling, given the Internet's availability as a public soap box, where nearly anyone with grievances to air is allowed to do so.

In another case where Viacom "mistakenly" misused the DMCA to have a parody taken down, the company agreed as part of its settlement with the EFF to educate its reviewers about fair use and promised not to challenge the use of its content if it is "creative, newsworthy, or transformative." The EFF isn't exactly known for backing down over cases like this, so we look forward to hearing about whatever resolution may come out of the Lowe's case. Harkleroad told us that if the two are unable to come to a resolution, he is still willing to take the case to court in Georgia.