Let's Talk LaBan

[Capaneus]

All true. If Plotkin really cares about the facts at issue, that is. Everything about this smells of harassment by lawsuit, as far as I can tell. Certainly the request for a video deposition seems like a strong hint.

As to the issue of identifying the meat... LaBan ordered the "steak frites"; the meat was identified as a "strip steak" by the waiter; LaBan reported this identification. I'm not sure he can be held responsible for the restaurant's training issues when he reports this information as he received it. In fact - arguendo - given the possibility that other patrons might face the same issue, to correct the mistake might be viewed as negligent.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Capaneus (log)

[Alcibiades]

The issue of the distributors from whom Chops buys its meats may not be critical to the court case, but it does cast a shadow of doubt as to the uber-integrity the article attributes to Plotkin and Chops; he might as well be buying mozzarella sticks from Sysco.

To boot, the fact that the article has unveiled that Chops serves inferior cuts of beef during lunch service is another knock against the restaurant's integrity.

To predicate the article on the concept of Plotkin's meticulous attention to detail and then reveal the way in which he actually sources and serves his product makes any knowledgeable reader conclude that Chops' integrity just isn't that impressive. Herein lies the problem with Plotkin opening this can of worms: these frivolous suits are way more trouble than they're worth for the restaurant (and, it seems, way more trouble for Laban as well).

[Phila-Foodie]

The whole case turns on intent. Plotkin has the burden of proof and, as a public figure, he needs to show that LaBan acted with “actual malice.” Unfortunately for Plotkin, it’s a subjective standard, not an objective one. In other words, the only way Plotkin can win is if he can affirmatively show that LaBan believed it was not a strip steak when he wrote the review (the “miserably tough and fatty” part, of course, is protected opinion). It doesn’t matter whether a reasonable person would have believed it was a strip steak or whether the steak LaBan ate, in fact, was not a strip steak. That's why these cases never win; the burden is too high.

According to the allegations in LaBan’s answer, LaBan believed he ate strip steak because that's what the waiter told his party, which are witnesses that likely will support LaBan's version of the story. Therefore, unless LaBan screwed up at the deposition or some other smoking gun comes out in discovery, Plotkin’s case is a loser. And now that Philly Mag has outed LaBan, Plotkin’s got no settlement leverage. Plotkin’s only hope at this point is that his attorney is savvy enough to survive summary judgment, which could give him a chip or two at the settlement table because trial is always a risk for both sides.

Plotkin may be passionate about his steak. But now, sadly, that’s not the beef for which he’ll be remembered.

[Tim Dolan]

Plotkin may be passionate about his steak.  But now, sadly, that’s not the beef for which he’ll be remembered.

←

Word.

[phungi]

I recently read the article, and saw that although there was an initial dip in customers/traffic, things returned to normal shortly thereafter.

I cannot imagine why Plotkin would want to pursue this... if the ruling is against him, there will not only be legal costs, but likely a 2nd dip in traffic. Ego defense can be very costly...

[Andrew Fenton]

The Laban case got some attention last week on the NPR program "On the Media". (link to a transcript and MP3 download) There's an interview with Larry Platt of Philadelphia Magazine. Probably not too much there that's new to anybody who's followed the case at all; what's most interesting is how both the host and Platt consider the case to be basically a joke... Which, I suppose, is what it is.

[philadining]

I actually ended up catching this by chance during the original broadcast, and was stuck sitting in my car listening to the end of it.

I thought it was amusing how Platt delivered his "he's not Valerie Plame" joke as if it were off the cuff, rather than a punchline he's been using quite regularly. But hey, it got a big laugh from the host...

[Capaneus]

Amazing review of Tallulah's Table in Sunday's Inky. Sort of rapturous ejaculations that leave you feeling vaguely embarrassed to be a witness to what is clearly the consummation of a passionate relationship.

Seriously folks: three-quarter front-page three-picture article. More than any of his special features - Year In Bells, Dining Down The Shore - usually get. Heck, most of his reviews don't even rate the front page of the section, let alone virtually the whole damn thing. The prose is suitably warm.

And then I look for the Bell-rating, wondering whether LaBan has the testicular fortitude to rate a country store Four Bells, or whether he's being coy and will somehow limit himself to three. And guess what: he finesses the whole thing by Not Rating the place. The supposed reason: that, for unclear reasons, he hasn't made multiple visits. Which, of course, begs the question of "Why not?"; closely followed by "Why the review, then?"

I honestly do try to give people the benefit of the doubt (though past Sikora-related writeups have certainly sown the seeds of this rant). But Sikora and LaBan are supposedly good friends, and he's trying to tell me he does not have a clear read on the guy's new place? Honestly, do I need to swallow? Because at this point I'm gagging a bit. The claim strikes me as a profoundly disingenuous way of sidestepping the issue.

And! And! How does a place he couldn't be bothered to visit multiple times rate the most prominent review space I can recall ever being assigned *any* restaurant review in the Inquirer?

Gah! I'm sorry, but this is just bush league. Can anyone imagine The Times letting Bruni get away with this? Forget the ethical issues, it's *tacky*! Couldn't he just wait for the Valentine's Day issue?

The place might be as good as LaBan implies. But LaBan himself just lost a couple of Bells in *my* ratings.

[pkm]

Hear, hear! Capaneus!

I have had a long-running disappointment with any Laban reviews of the Django ilk. From factual inaccuracies to overtly biased reviews, they are guaranteed to be a stain on what is usually pretty objective and entertaining writing. From the re-review of Django (I'm sorry, but a loud cramped room with cheap wine glasses and just slightly above average food that's impossible to get into is not 4-bell territory in my world), to the sudden interest at his temporary gig (Sovana), to this new review, I think it's obvious now that he has either a personal relationship with the owners or a such a strong bias towards them that he should recuse himself from reviewing any of their ventures for what is essentially a conflict of interest. And if this new spot is the best thing since sliced bread, how hard is it to stop back one more time and give them a formal rating?

In concurrence, and in conclusion, Mr Laban has also been struck from 4 to 3 bells in my book.

Edited October 13, 2007 by pkm (log)

[Rich Pawlak]

Controversies like this make for increased readership, too, don't discount the fact that our very discussion is a calculated ploy to draw even more attention to the paper on Sunday. As the old adage goes, "There is no such thing as bad PR."

I imagine that is why he is allowed to run as wild and obviously biased as he has become with the work of this couple. Would never fly with any other major newspaper, including the Daily News in Philly.

[KatieLoeb]

Amazing review of Tallulah's Table in Sunday's Inky. Sort of rapturous ejaculations that leave you feeling vaguely embarrassed to be a witness to what is clearly the consummation of a passionate relationship.

←

Food porn indeed. Or at the very least, review porn.

Not objective then, not objective now. Pfft. I'm sure it's a lovely place. I'm also sure it isn't as described. Once again the bells metric has been changed. Once again for the same people. He needs to be their PR agent. Oh, wait. Perhaps he is?

[jmbrightman]

a review without bells is still a review. that one reads like a 4 dinger.

[HD73]

I had a slightly negative reaction to the absence of a bell-rating, but not nearly so strong as some of these, so let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I just set up a dinner at Talula's table last week. If you want to get the place for a friday or saturday night, the wait was until January BEFORE the review came out. Trying to coordinate 8 adults that can make it to Kennett Square on a weeknight is a biatch. I can imagine that trying to make multiple visits to Talula's table while maintaining some semblance of anonymity would be nearly impossible.

My guess is that the food there is really great (David McDuff certainly agrees per the other thread, and I've had a takeout pot pie and scone that were really excellent) and CL wanted to get the word out, but doing a full-scale review wasn't feasible. I never ate at Django under the old ownership, so I can't speak to his objectivity there.

On a positive note, I'm having dinner at Talula's next week, so I'll make a full report and let you know if I think it lives up to the LaHype.

[Capaneus]

I had a slightly negative reaction to the absence of a bell-rating, but not nearly so strong as some of these, so let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

My guess is that the food there is really great...

On a positive note, I'm having dinner at Talula's next week, so I'll make a full report and let you know if I think it lives up to the LaHype.

←

Not really the point. Or not my point, at any rate: the issue is the entirely exceptional nature of the product anytime LaBan comes within worshiping distance of Bryan Sikora; and (most importantly) the fact that his bias is never, ever, even hinted at in the reviews.

I considered the issue of his ability to get in multiple reviews. It just so happens that I know of three parties in the last month that had dinners there who have, in the past, served as LaBan Beards. None of them were at full twelve-seat capacity, and none of them would have strongly demurred had he sought to be included. His "inability" has, at a minimum, been little contested.

To be entirely clear: I have no quarrel whatever with his opinion of Talula's Table - I haven't eaten there. I do, however, have issue with the fact that he failed to disclose his relationship with Sikora and Olexy, and - most importantly - found a way to give this non-review an amount of space that dwarfs any restaurant he's written up before. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

Well, that and the fact that he, having previously warped the Bell-continuum to accommodate a BYOB, has now gone a large step beyond and found a way to elevate a country store to Double-Secret Non-Probationary Honorary Stealth-Four-Bell status.

Which rankles, given the standards he's held others to.

Well, that and the fact that his opinion of Django always seemed a bit overheated to me, and his review of Sovana seemed like nothing much beyond a way to give a friend a leg up.

[Pacojette]

I had a slightly negative reaction to the absence of a bell-rating, but not nearly so strong as some of these, so let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

My guess is that the food there is really great...

On a positive note, I'm having dinner at Talula's next week, so I'll make a full report and let you know if I think it lives up to the LaHype.

←

Not really the point. Or not my point, at any rate: the issue is the entirely exceptional nature of the product anytime LaBan comes within worshiping distance of Bryan Sikora; and (most importantly) the fact that his bias is never, ever, even hinted at in the reviews.

I considered the issue of his ability to get in multiple reviews. It just so happens that I know of three parties in the last month that had dinners there who have, in the past, served as LaBan Beards. None of them were at full twelve-seat capacity, and none of them would have strongly demurred had he sought to be included. His "inability" has, at a minimum, been little contested.

To be entirely clear: I have no quarrel whatever with his opinion of Talula's Table - I haven't eaten there. I do, however, have issue with the fact that he failed to disclose his relationship with Sikora and Olexy, and - most importantly - found a way to give this non-review an amount of space that dwarfs any restaurant he's written up before. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

Well, that and the fact that he, having previously warped the Bell-continuum to accommodate a BYOB, has now gone a large step beyond and found a way to elevate a country store to Double-Secret Non-Probationary Honorary Stealth-Four-Bell status.

Which rankles, given the standards he's held others to.

Well, that and the fact that his opinion of Django always seemed a bit overheated to me, and his review of Sovana seemed like nothing much beyond a way to give a friend a leg up.

←

What is Laban's "relationship" with Sikora and Olexy that he did not disclose? Do we know this for a fact or is it merely a suspicion?

[Capaneus]

What is Laban's "relationship" with Sikora and Olexy that he did not disclose?  Do we know this for a fact or is it merely a suspicion?

←

He's called them "friends", in other settings. What exactly that means you'd have to find out from him.

[kretch]

Any update on the Plotkin matter?

[phungi]

Any update on the Plotkin matter?

←

According to the tracking dates on this site there has been no activity in the news in quite some time. Not sure if that means things were dropped...