Copyranter points us to this priceless ad on sexual harrassment that ran in the Chicago area. It’s the case study method of print advertising which can sometimes be quite effective.
This ad is brilliant! Sort of. Okay not really. Kind of disturbing actually and far from effective. Look at the guy in image #2 looking at the alleged harasser over his glasses!! Hilarious.
(And more on law firm marketing and advertising soon. Did you know local Bar Associations often screen and reject law firms’ ads?)
I’m generally busy at work. So when I get an extra reading assignment from a professor at 2:20 p.m. for that night’s class, I’m not happy. I got such an assignment today - and I was livid. Particularly since in tonight’s Torts class we’re discussing proximate cause and that hopelessly ridiculous case, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad.
So, I finally get to a point where I can take a break and look at the supplemental reading and it starts with this little video about a tanker spilling oil into the water (ala the Wagon Mound Cases):
The other bit of “supplemental reading” was a column by law professor Andrew McClurg that contained this little snippet of the “in-chambers colloquy” between the judges that wrote opinions in the case (Cardozo for the majority and Andrews in dissent):
Cardozo: Let’s really mess with their heads by writing about two completely different subjects. I’ll go on and on about duty, then just when they think they might be figuring things out, you start talking about proximate cause. Use that ridiculous hypo you’re so fond of.
Andrews: The chauffeur and the car full of dynamite? That’s no hypo. It’s a joke. The chauffeur says to the guy with the dyna-
Cardozo: Whatever. Just cram it in there somehow. And remember-the overriding goal is to write an opinion that makes the reader think he’s losing his mind.
