A lawyer deals in confrontations, and, inevitably, will come out of some fray or other looking like a fool. It can happen even to a partner in a major firm.

But seldom will a partner in a major firm so miscalculate a move as to wind up being humiliated at the hands of a pro per. That’s the fate of Richard H. Zaitlen, a partner in the prestigious multi-national law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro.

Zaitlen, who practices in the Los Angeles office of the 120-year old San Francisco-based firm, has been pitted against other top lawyers in numerous intellectual property disputes. He has met his match in the person of Candace Rich, a 48-year-old Florida divorcee with no training in law.

For the past few months, Zaitlen and his client Dick Clark have been held up to ridicule on Rich’s 1950s-themed website, "Fifties Web," which receives about 1,000 hits a day. It’s located at http://www.fiftiesweb.com. Rich on Tuesday updated her site to announce a truce precipitated by Zaitlen’s rendering of an unqualified apology on behalf of himself and Clark.

It all started in November, 1996 when Rich launched her nostalgia-filled website which included a page devoted to Clark and the popular-with-teens television show "American Bandstand." Clark hosted that show for its entire 30-year run on ABC commencing on Aug. 5, 1957. Rich was 7 when the show was launched, and was a devoted fan of it in its early years when it emanated from Philadelphia. In a "personal tribute" to the show on her website, she reminisced:

"Weekday afternoons were spent with the kids in Philly, the kids on ‘American Bandstand.’ I knew all their names. I knew when couples broke up. I imitated all the dance steps, sometimes with the refrigerator door as a partner. My mother thought I was nuts.

"To many of you, it was about the music and the artists. Forget that. I was a preteen, which is to say, I was a teenage wannabe. And, for me, the kids on ‘American Bandstand’ were all I aspired to be."

From that, it would seem that this unabashed fan of Clark and his rock ’n’ roll dance show would be about the last person to draw Clark’s wrath and a threat from his lawyer, Zaitlen, of litigation. But last Feb. 25, Zaitlen dispatched a missive to Rich on behalf of dick clark productions, inc. (the principal shareholder of which is Richard "Dick" W. Clark). In it, he thundered:

"[W]e demand that you immediately cease and desist any and all use of the terms BANDSTAND, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, and OLDEST LIVING TEENAGER, the name DICK CLARK, as well as Mr. Clark’s persona and likeness, and any other names, terms and/or images which are confusingly similar. If you agree to cease and desist within 10 days from the date of this letter, we will recommend to our client that no further action be taken. If you do not so agree, we have been authorized to file suit against you. At that time, we will not only seek preliminary injunctive relief, but substantial money damages as well."

Zaitlen accused the webmistress of "trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, copyright infringement" and possibly "other legal violations as well."

At the bottom of the letter was a pledge which Zaitlen wanted Rich to sign and return to him in which she would agree, among other things, to "cease and desist any and all use of Mr. Dick Clark’s name and/or likeness."

Rich’s tribute to an erstwhile hero appeared on a totally non-commercial site which could not conceivably be mistaken for one officially connected with Clark or his enterprises. It is difficult to fathom how Rich was harming Clark by blowing kisses to him.

In any event, Rich, whose name connotes wealth but whose assets belie the appellation, decided she could not afford to do battle with Clark in court. So, she backed down — to a point. The point to which she retreated put her beyond legal risk.

But Clark hardly obtained what he would have wished. The situation was sort of like when the late Mayor Sam Yorty demanded a retraction from the L.A. Times and got it — but in a piece that was more cutting than that to which he had lodged his protest.

With wit, the spunky webmistress publicly cast Clark and Zaitlen in exceedingly embarrassing light by reproducing Zaitlen’s letter on her website, along with her response to him, and by reposting the American Bandstand tribute with certain changes. There were extrabold black Xs through the word "Bandstand" at the top (I guess she figured she could use the word "American" without infringing any copyright held by Clark) and the name "American Bandstand" was replaced throughout the text with "You Know What," while Clark was referred to as "You Know Who."

The page starts out...

" ‘You Know What’ began as a local program in Philadelphia in 1952. Then it was called Bob Horn's bandstand. In July of 1956 the show got a new host, a clean-cut 26 year old named ‘You Know Who.’ When ABC picked the show up, it was renamed ‘You Know What’...."

A box appears on the page containing these words: "This space formerly filled with a picture of Bobby Darin, Frankie Avalon, Sal Mineo, Pat Boone and You Know Who."

The webpage makes the point as effectively as any legal brief could that a celebrity’s rights to exclusive use of his or her name and likeness go only so far...and surely not so far as Zaitlen contended in his letter.

In explaining her partial acquiescence, Rich said in a message to those visiting the site:

"The Fifties Website is my personal recollection of the wonderful period in time in which I and other Baby Boomers grew up. The very first words on the site are, ‘These are the memories of a Baby Boomer.’

"We got our idea of what being a ‘teen’ could be by watching a show called ‘American Bandstand.’

"Anyone who has looked around the site would understand this. I wasn't selling anything which in any way used Dick Clark's name or any copyrighted or trademarked material related to Bandstand.

"But this is a big damn law firm with 600 lawyers in 10 offices worldwide that came for me...."

In a March 19 letter to Zaitlen, appearing on the website, Rich said, in part:

"I don't get it. I just don't get it. Why would anyone want to curtail a fan site? What element of the free publicity poses a threat? And by what right do you make such demands?

"Fans and publicity sustain celebrity. Our money lines your coffers and our attention fuels your egos. Although the fan may at times appear the supplicant, in truth, it is the celebrity which is dependent....

"Not to put too rough an edge on it Mr. Zaitlen, but Dick Clark isn't exactly having a good P.R. year. He, along with Ed McMahon and American Family Publishers, is being sued by the State of Florida under the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. From a public relations point of view, this is not good.

"Common sense should whisper, ‘take all the kind words you can get.’

"Yet, I receive a demand to withdraw them."

Rich proceeded to give the lawyer a lecture on implications of the First Amendment.

It was a matter of rock ’n’ roll: Rich was on a roll; Clark and Zaitlen no doubt rocked from the jolt.

The professional website designer went on to remark:

"You threaten me with ‘substantial money damages.’ Whoa. Have I got some bad news for you! I'm just one lone middle-aged lady, not some multi-national corporation. And besides, in exactly what way were you damaged?"

A good question — and one which Zaitlen would no doubt have had difficulty — if not impossibility — in answering had he brought the action he threatened. But would such an action actually have been brought had Rich not stripped her webpage of photos of Clark and references to him by name?

"I don’t believe so," Zaitlen told this column Monday, "because of the way in which things were portrayed" on the website, "in a fan-club way."

Zaitlen explained that there had been "10 or 15" websites using Dick Clark’s identity and trademarks for promotion of "the sale of a product, promotion of a band, promotion of a bar or casino." He said that Clark "saw a number of websites and saw what was going on" and wanted the websites stopped from cashing in on his name and likeness. "We thought that [Rich’s] was one of them," the lawyer related.

"We thought we did an investigation of her website," he added.

Obviously, a good look at that website was not taken before Zaitlen shot off his Feb. 25 letter threatening litigation.

On the webpage containing the letter from Zaitlen, Rich included a link to Zaitlen’s e-mail address. She told me there was a plethora of irate messages to the lawyer from web-cruisers.

On Tuesday, Rich posted on her website the latest letter from Zaitlen, this one containing profuse apologies. It reads:

"I am writing to apologize for my February 25, 1998 letter regarding your FiftiesWeb.com website. I am very sorry for the consternation that it caused.

"As I hope you will understand, one of my jobs is to diligently protect the trademarks of dick clark productions, inc. We have recently discovered quite a number of people using trademarks without permission for financial gain and it is sometimes difficult to ascertain, from a website, whether references to Dick Clark or to American Bandstand are being used improperly to sell products or services.

"I obviously misinterpreted the nature of your website and I am sorry for that mistake. When Mr. Clark learned of this misunderstanding, he was dismayed. As you probably already know, Mr. Clark cares very much for his fans and is extremely sensitive to their interests and activities. Please be advised that Mr. Clark has no objection whatsoever to your website and shares my regret for our mistaken impression of your activities.

"I sincerely hope that you will accept my apology. I also hope that you will continue with your internet endeavors and derive enjoyment from them."

The correspondence between Rich and Zaitlen — at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/bandstnd.htm — won’t remain on the website for long, Rich told me. She noted:

"I’ll leave the whole kit and caboodle there for about 30 days, and let bygones be bygones, and put it back the way it was."

Rich added:

"Apologies in our society are rare. You gotta give them [Zaitlen and Clark] a couple ‘atta boys.’"

MAYOR SAM — It was just a few weeks before Sam Yorty died last Friday that I happened to be talking with Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden and mentioned how much fun it was covering City Hall in the Yorty Days for the Herald Examiner. Yorty was an upbeat, zesty politico who was outspoken and quotable.

The councilman’s reaction to my reminiscences was to telephone Yorty at his home to propose a lunch with the three of us. Holden told the ex-mayor he was about to go off on vacation but would call when he got back to set up a time and place. He recounted Monday that Yorty responded, "Great — I’ll be looking forward to it."

Yorty’s "voice was good" and he was "glad I called," the city lawmaker said.

When he returned from a week’s vacation in Mexico, Yorty was in the hospital, he noted.

The phone conversation took place late last month. Holden was, in all probability, the last city office-holder to speak with that colorful three-time mayor of our city.

In 1961, as a student at University High School, I sported a "Youth for Yorty" button on my shirts. A few years ago, there was a dinner in honor of Yorty at the Sportsmen’s Lodge, and I remarked in this space that I was no longer a youth, but was still for Yorty.

Like Sen. Barry Goldwater, who died but a few days earlier, Yorty was straight talking and straight shooting. We need more in politics of their ilk.

SILVER ANNIVERSARY — It was 25 years ago today that this column started. It was born in the Los Angeles Daily Journal — a newspaper whose current owners are now doing their darndest to render me — and everybody else working for this newspaper — among the unemployed. Notwithstanding the below-cost selling (which has become the subject of litigation) and below the belt punches by those now in control of that newspaper, I’ll always have a fondness for the newspaper, itself. I just hope it will someday again be in the hands of persons with honor and a commitment to fair play.

MetNews Main Page      Perspectives Columns