Dipping back into the book Giuliani: Flawed or Flawless?, I came across some first impressions of him. But first, a warning: The following sample has been selected for amusement value, and is decidedly not reflective of the membership of the Republican Party.

Floy Abrams, who would later represent the Brooklyn Museum against Giuliani, remembered:

Mark Green recalled:

Jay Goldberg, an attorney who represented several clients prosecuted by Giuliani in 1988:

-- Azi Paybarah

But political partisanship really has little to do with the rivalries and alliances that festoon every law firm-especially when it comes to paying work. Thus Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Conway have been working together on a securities fraud case since 1996 without huffing or backbiting, said those who have witnessed the legal alliance.

The two are defending a subsidiary and executives of stock issuer Merrill Lynch & Company in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, against claims that they had misled the investing public about the stock of the Ann Taylor Stores Corporation. Both Wachtell barristers appeared together at oral arguments last year. "They worked together seamlessly," said Robert Zimet, a lawyer of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who represented Ann Taylor.

And successfully: The legal duo won a dismissal of the case in November 1998. They are now readying a brief for the appeal due in April.

The pairing of the two lawyers was a conventional assignment for each man. But it surprised some former Wachtell associates, for reasons having nothing to do with politics. Mr. Conway is considered part of the camp of litigators around Herbert Wachtell. Working for the tempestuous Mr. Wachtell is an acquired taste, insiders said, but one Mr. Conway apparently relishes. Still, those two are far from a political match: Mr. Wachtell is a big donor to the Democratic Party.

Mr. Nussbaum is a far mellower work partner than Mr. Wachtell. "Everybody gets along with Bernie," said one former associate. (Wachtell is not the White House, where Mr. Nussbaum reportedly had his political troubles.) And other lawyers who know Mr. Nussbaum said he is too street-smart to hold a grudge against a talented attorney when it comes to business.

Mr. Conway declined comment. But Mr. Nussbaum said he and his young Federalist colleague even get along with each other when out of the courtroom. "He is a very able lawyer, a very able partner, and he works with me, among other people in the firm," said Mr. Nussbaum on March 3. "I'm on a friendly basis with George Conway," he added. So, friends? "We're professional colleagues," he said.

He had to run; late for a party. Monica Lewinsky's interview with Barbara Walters was only a couple of hours away.

Megafirm Merger Still a Maybe

They have a name: White & Case Brown & Wood. But do they have a deal?

Simple answer: not yet.

Both firms acknowledged that their respective management committees continue to discuss a proposed 1,200-lawyer megafirm, even though the end-of-February goal has passed. "We're about a week behind where we want to be," admitted Thomas Smith, managing partner of Brown & Wood. "All we'll say is that discussions are proceeding, and they're proceeding well," said White & Case spokesman Nancy Lasersohn.

The emissaries are meeting two, sometimes three times a week to forge a merger proposal, alternating between White & Case's 44th Street offices and Brown & Wood's abode in the World Trade Center. Money, contended one participant, is no longer the key issue between the firms.

So what is? To judge by the order of the ungainly name, maybe control. The name order was pretty obvious, said one participant in the talks: "One of these firms is twice the size of the other." And one of these firms, White & Case, has a pretty dominating leader in James Hurlock. "Smith had thought he would get a role right at the top with Hurlock," said one person not at the table. "He realized in January that wasn't exactly how it would happen." Mr. Smith declined to discuss his management role or any of the issues under discussion.

One Brown & Wood side lawyer thought that the partners would receive the proposal during the second week of March. But that might be a little rosy. A White & Case source's reaction to the time estimate: "Is that a reliable source?"

That's Law Biz

Al Pacino and Natalie Portman are splitsville, legally speaking.

The actors, who appeared together in the movie Heat , both had lawyers at entertainment stalwart Frankfurt, Garbus, Klein & Selz. Recently, though, Ms. Portman's lawyer, Ira Schreck, and three others took their cell phones and briefcases and left to start their own firm. Mr. Pacino will stay with the parent firm.

The lawyers' defection to the new Schreck, Rose & Dapello firm removes from Frankfurt Garbus such screen sorts as Aidan Quinn, Julianne Moore, Tom Berenger and Skeet Ulrich; the directors of My Left Foot , The Ice Storm and The Madness of King George ; the songwriter for The Prince of Egypt ; and financiers October Films.

Mr. Schreck's group had started running into occasional conflicts at Frankfurt Garbus, which represents media companies as well as individual performers. "It felt like it was the time to set up a boutique devoted to the needs of the creative community," he said. The two firms are still working together on a few matters.

Nancy Rose, a name partner in the firm, had some expertise in theater. Another partner who specialized in Broadway deals also departed, last year. Michael Frankfurt, the managing partner at the 40-lawyer firm, said the firm on Jan. 1 had brought in a new theater partner to make up for those losses. He otherwise shrugged off the departures as routine for an established firm like his. "This will have no material effect on our practice," he said, ticking off a few talents whom the firm represents, including Alec Baldwin, John Goodman, Geraldo Rivera, Tom Clancy … and Monica Lewinsky.

He said that the firm will replace Mr. Schreck and Ms. Rose in the natural course of things; right now, its partners are seeking a couple of midlevel associates who can handle corporate work. "It's a totally full-service law firm, and the corporate work overlaps significantly into the entertainment clients and the businesses they're in," he said. ( The Observer is one of the firm's clients.)

Indeed, representing individual performers can be financially nerve-racking for a lawyer. "It's an awful lot of work for not much money," said another entertainment lawyer in town. Will the new firm be able to sustain itself by dickering over artists' contracts? Said Ms. Rose, on the phone from the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen: "We think we are representing the champs in the business. The actors, the writers, the directors-those are the jewels of the business … Obviously, we wouldn't do this unless we thought we can make money at it."

For Mr. Schreck, a former cab driver and Reno croupier, one of the benefits of the new firm is its relaxed, Los Angeles-like environment. "I get to wear jeans," said Mr. Schreck.

Pirro Due Up

There's a big induction planned for Cooperstown this summer, but it's not of the baseball kind. The state's district attorneys will gather in July in the town of the National Baseball Hall of Fame for their association's annual summer conference, where they'll swear in a new president to a one-year term.

On deck for the position: West-chester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The ascension is apparently moving ahead, despite the legal troubles of Ms. Pirro's husband, Albert J. Pirro Jr., which have cast a large shadow on Ms. Pirro's political ambitions.

The case against Mr. Pirro, a Republican lobbyist, has already done some damage to his wife. Indicted on Feb. 23 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White on 66 counts of tax fraud, Mr. Pirro has been accused of making improper deductions for home furnishings, baby sitters, vehicles, vacations and other items shared by the couple. Ms. Pirro was not indicted although she signed some

of the tax forms. The much-

photographed District Attorney has maintained that she was neither knowledgeable about nor involved in her husband's business activities, but editorial writers have criticized her lack of curiosity about her household finances and urged her to explain further. Her husband's spokesman claimed that the indictment has already "sidelined her as a possible senatorial candidate."

Ms. Pirro's fellow law enforcement leaders, however, so far have not passed judgment. Ms. Pirro's spokesman David Hebert said that her term as head of the New York State District Attorneys Association is still on track. "She has given me no indication that anything has changed," he said. The man in line to get the job once her term is done, vice president-elect Robert Carney, the District Attorney of Schenectady County, said she has his support. "She's a talented lady. I feel bad for her," said Mr. Carney, a Democrat in office for nine years. "I would much rather follow her in the year 2001 than [replace her] in the year 1999."

Unless the U.S. Attorney's office backs off from the indictment, the case against Mr. Pirro likely will still be pending when the Cooperstown gathering kicks off on July 14. The next hearing in the case is March 31.

Four Reasons To Say Goodbye

A trial lawyer who practices at a noted small litigation shop returned one of N.Y. Law's phone calls the other day. "I'm sorry I've been a little slow in getting back to you," he said, "I'm quitting the practice of law and I've been trying to take care of a couple of last matters."

That was surprising. This was someone who had always wanted to be a trial lawyer. A onetime clerk to a Federal judge, lead associate on some big securities cases, he had spent some time at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison but left before he was offered a chance to become partner. Now he was going for good. "It's an ugly profession to try and make a living in," he said.

The lawyer said his decision came down to four issues. "One is the client hustle … Second is: So little of litigation has to do with the actual dispute now; it's all in fighting procedural battles, waves of motions. The stuff that requires legal analysis is minimal.

"Three: People are nasty. They've always been nasty, but they're still nasty.

"And then you settle everything. Much of litigation is positioning yourself now, so it's drawn out and drawn out until both sides have to cave somewhat. What amounts to the actual trial is so little now."

The lawyer said he's not expecting much to change. "O.K., you pass a law and say you will start sanctioning frivolous litigation. Now, in reality, few people ever get sanctioned. But now everyone files motions to sanction. And there's the pre-discovery conference. That was created to resolve all the discovery disputes in advance, all at the same time. So you go to it and take care of everything-that's the theory. But then you go and fight the same disputes anyway.

"You still hear plenty of people making motions for the purpose of 'educating the judge' … If you do a survey of senior litigation associates, see how many cases of theirs have gotten past summary judgment. Below 20 percent? In my five years at Paul Weiss, I had one."

With few regrets, he's planning to go to work for a hedge fund.

You can reach N.Y. Law by confidential e-mail at mfleischer@observer.com.

"Court TV is such a victim of its own success," said television reporter Terry Moran, who left Court TV in 1997. "A lot of other networks cover the law now. That's why I'm at ABC."

So what's a once-glorious cable channel to do? New Court TV president Henry Schleiff, formerly a lawyer at the hoity-toity firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell, hopes to win back the viewers without sacrificing the identity established under Court TV founder Steven Brill. But, actually, he's willing to alter the cable network's DNA for better ratings.

" This was what we were looking for," Mr. Schleiff said in his office the other day, handing over a sheet with the ratings. And if the improvement came from an instance of stunt programming–a full day of all Homicide reruns–well, at least there was some movement there. Mr. Schleiff, a former law review editor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, started work last Oct. 1. The new prime-time schedule he devised began, partially, on Jan. 1. "First of all, we said, forget law, let's go wider–which is justice," he said. "And then, at the same time, not only should we be providing information, we should be providing entertainment."

The network's nightly offerings now include a half-hour legal newsmagazine, Pros & Cons ; reruns of the NBC crime drama Homicide ; an abbreviated Johnnie Cochran talk show that now features celebrity guests such as Roseanne and Chris Rock, as well as courtroom combatants; and an hourlong documentary series called Crime Stories .

Would he go so far as to air the syndicated Cops , if he had the chance? "It's a show we would consider," said Mr. Schleiff, who crafted Montel Williams' show and aired Jerry Springer's during stints at Viacom Inc.'s broadcasting and entertainment groups and the USA Network's production arm, respectively. Mr. Schleiff has also cut a deal with Lionel (né Michael Lebron), a former prosecutor and talk-show host with a schtick, for a talk show called Snap Judgment . "It's kind of an MTV-visits-the-lower-courts," said Mr. Schleiff. He has also had discussions with celebrity-crazed journalist Robin Leach and John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted . Gavel-to-gavel trial coverage still fills Court TV's daytime schedule.

Not everyone at Court TV likes the new mix. Jeff Ballabon, the head of Court TV public affairs who negotiated with judges to get cameras in courtrooms, recently left for Channel One, the national school channel. But others don't mind the change. "You get tired of seeing your employer described as 'the moribund cable network,'" said one employee who asked not to be named.

Mr. Brill, the founder, had lofty aspirations for the channel. It would be one great ongoing civics lesson. Then came O.J. Simpson. The notorious trial made the civics lesson go down all too easily, and suddenly Court TV found itself in the odd position of leading the charge of the tabloid press. It also drew great numbers. At the end of the O.J. freak show, however, Mr. Brill showed he was serious indeed about the public good: He decided to broadcast live for two weeks from The Hague for the International War Crimes Tribunal, complete with hours of translated Serbo-Croatian.

"Brill said you can't call yourself Court TV and not broadcast this," recalled Mr. Moran.

The O.J. crowd tuned out, and the ratings numbers looked like mere hash marks.

Mr. Schleiff is also considering a show similar to the A&E Network's Biography . In fact, his programming strategy owes a lot to A&E. In picking up old Homicide episodes, he's mimicking A&E's acquisition of Law & Order repeats.

He said he plans to use a video diary from one senator during the impeachment proceedings, but said he doesn't plan for the network to devote as many hours to the impeachment case as it did for the Simpson trial–which could leave viewers confused.

Barry Scheck, who frequently appeared on the network during Steve Brill's days, said: "You'd hope that they'd get ahead, put together a huge educational effort, say, by educating the public on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. If there were a two-hour special on Court TV, with all the scholars talking all about all the history of impeachment, you'd watch that, right?"

Mr. Schleiff said that he had turned down multiple offers to re-enact the 1868 Johnson trial.

"I flipped it on last night," said Ronald Goldfarb, author of TV or Not TV: Television, Justice and the Courts , "expecting to see the impeachment hearings–what else could it be? But what I saw instead were reruns of Homicide . I just don't need Court TV for Homicide reruns."

But the new president thinks Court TV needs to go a little less C-Span for its own survival. "It's as simple as some version of cowboy and Indian," Mr. Schleiff said. "I think people want to see the good guy chase the bad guy and catch him. I think it's as simple as that."

Merger Moves Closer; White & Case Looks Ahead

The partners of White & Case, who for the past two months have been wooing Brown & Wood to create a landmark mega-firm, discussed the proposed merger en masse at a retreat in Key Largo, Fla., from Jan. 6 to Jan. 8. The firm's accountants reviewed Brown & Wood's books in December. According to one close observer, some White & Case partners have been concerned about shortcomings in Brown & Wood's San Francisco office.

The Clinton Jury

N.Y. Law checked in with a half-dozen trial consultants, the sort who pick apart juries and turn the trial into a piece of theater, to see how they would earn their keep during the Senate impeachment trial. Half confessed they felt pretty useless, since the jurors in this case have pretty much already confessed their bias. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors," said Sonya Hamlin, the Manhattan-based author of What Makes Juries Listen Today . "Every one of these senators has committed perjury. They have all sworn on the Bible to be impartial, but they all belong to a party, and they all know how they will vote."

Amid such a farce, go with common sense.

"You simply want to make sure that you don't lose any of them by anything you do," said consultant David Ball. "If the White House moved for an immediate dismissal, I think some of the Democrats would be offended that the White House is not going along with the way they want to do it. Because it puts them in a position of having to vote for things they don't want to vote for."

After that, just play to television. Put Bill Clinton on the stand if one or two votes defect, said Dr. Louis Genevie, president of Litigation Strategies in midtown. "I think he would want to defend himself. That would give him the spotlight, where he likes to be," he said. The President would be safe from tough cross-examination: "Anything that is done to smear the President in front of the entire world, and not have a practical result of removing him from office, is self-defeating."

You can reach N.Y. Law by confidential e-mail at mfleischer@observer.com.