Monday, August 7, 2017

So Fancy


  • Last week the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting information regarding medical marijuana licensees. [TNI]
  • Here's a puff piece on the director of public relations for the Las Vegas Defense Group (relocating to a new location next month). Does your firm have one of those? [Vegas Inc.]

16 comments:

  1. We do not have a director of public relations. We do not have a puff piece.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why does this blog, when they list topics for discussion, always refer to non-controversial, informational bio type articles as "puff pieces."?

    In Journalism parlance, a puff piece is when you take a topic and/or person which should be somewhat controversial, or which at least justifies a warts and all type of in depth presentation, and turn it into a bland, completely positive piece. This is usually intended to counterbalance the more controversial, negative opposing view point.

    But publications which do not purport to be balanced, challenging journalism, but which only exist for the purpose of presenting positive biographical overviews, can never really be accused of printing puff pieces, because it is never expected that they will publish anything except bland biographical material.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "puff piece" (NOUN): a newspaper article or item using exaggerated praise to advertise or promote a celebrity, book, or event.

    There is no requirement of controversy or warts. VegasInc. purports to be a business journal for Las Vegas, to actually engage in some journalism. Yes this was a puff piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those business journals never convincingly purport to be anything except purely positive free-advertising type pieces. Since all that such a publication would ever carry with be such pieces, id does not distinquish the matter by calling an article a puff piece, since all the articles would fit in the exact same category, and none of them would remotely address anything negative or controversial.

      Now if a local daily paper purported to run a thorough, balanced feature story on the person, and all they offered was sanitized positive platitudes, that could rightfully be called a puff piece because we had the expectation of something much different, better, and more balanced.

      But these business journals have no such pretense, so therefore, by your definition, all the pieces will be puff pieces. And since, due to the type of publication they appear in, 100% of the articles will be puff pieces, and we cannot realistically expect anything else, it is rendered meaningless to call it a puff piece. Calling something a puff piece is, in journalism, almost always reserved for a disappointing situation where a news outlet was expected to deal with the good, bad, and ugly, but then only deals with the good, and in a highly sanitized exaggerated fashion.

      Rather than debating the point by quoting definitions, why don't you call someone in the journalism industry and pose the question to them? Also, if you keep listing pieces as puff pieces, don't bother mentioning such articles as very few people will want to read such tripe if all the article amounts to is an overblown advertisement for the person's firm or practice.

      Delete
    2. 9:33 indicates no such organization and no such article actually exists.

      Therefore, there appears no point to debate the matter.

      Delete
  4. What is a client concierge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone who cups the balls.

      Delete
  5. I've recently had two plaintiff attorneys object to disclosure of current and related medical treatment on the grounds of doctor/patient confidentiality.

    Is this a new plaintiff's trend brewing or just two coincidental idiots?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are testing presumably. When a plaintiff files a personal injury case, they place their treatment in issue and medical condition. The appropriate response is a letter first along with a release and then a motion to compel seeking costs and fees.

      Delete
    2. They are fucking idiots or your request was worded by a fucking idiot. Either way, at least 1 party is a fucking idiot, maybe both.

      Delete
  6. Now part of a firm with office in Michigan. One of the lawyers sent this to all users. Guessing it was by accident. Still it's a compelling quote:

    “ . . . the trial court’s admonition to defendant that the judge was ‘the guy paying for it’ when defendant expressed regret for having had a relationship with plaintiff goes entirely too far. A sitting trial court judge is in absolutely no way ‘paying’ for anything—quite the opposite, judges earn a salary for the precise purpose of resolving legal problems parties bring to them, whereas parties are frequently paying what is to them vast sums of money they often do not have and significantly inconveniencing themselves for the privilege of attempting to navigate a seemingly Kafkaesque procedural and bureaucratic labyrinth because they have little choice.”

    Fante v Nova, unpublished opinion of Court of Appeals issued 6/29/17

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read a little farther. They could be talking about certain of the sitting judges in the Eighth District: "A trial judge unable to contain their impatience, unable to appreciate the perspective of the people before the court, or unable to refrain from making the proceedings about themself instead of the parties, is perhaps in the wrong line of work."

      Delete
  7. Interesting reading in the briefs in State Bar v. Colin. Admittedly Colin's brief reads like it was written by a raving lunatic. However much of his allegations against the State Bar appear to have some merit--where due process and requiring the OBC to actually tell the truth in a hearing appear to have some legs. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=43260

    ReplyDelete
  8. Question - Do the attorneys representing the banks even read their briefs anymore?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOW INTO COURT, THROUGH THE UNDERSIGNED SOON TO BE FORMER AKERMAN LLP ASSOCIATE, COMES WELLS FARGO TRUST FUND CHARTERED INC. (HEREINAFTER "WELLS FARGO" OR "WELLS" OR "BANK" OR "COMPANY"), WHO RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE SHMOE PLAINTIFF IS PROBABLY SOME DEADBEAT THAT HAS NOT PAID HIS MORTGAGE AND INSTEAD HAS SPUN SOME WILD TALE ABOUT SEPARATING NOTES FROM DEEDS OF TRUST (HERINAFTER "DOT") AND THE HOMEOWNER'S BILL OF RIGHTS (HEREINAFTER "HBOR"). FOR THE REASONS PROBABLY SET FORTH MORE FULLY BELOW, BUT MAYBE NOT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ THIS FORM MOTION IN YEARS BECAUSE I AM MISERABLY BUSY AND I HAVE NOT SEEN MY FAMILY OR FRIENDS IN EIGHT (8) MONTHS, [BANK] RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE COURT TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND MAYBE CALL ARIEL AND/OR DARREN IN TO CHAMBERS FOR SOMETHING SO I CAN SEE IF I CAN UNCHAIN MYSELF FROM THIS DESK.

      Delete
    2. Now that is funny. You realize you just spent more time typing that original recitation than any Akerman associate has spent on an actual Motion in the last 4 years.

      Delete