The Rakofsky Standard

I missed the initial Rakofsky story in the Washington Post because I was unplugged on vacation. Short version, via Twitter friends and the internet, is that a young attorney in New York represented a man accused of murder in a Washington D.C. criminal case. There were a few issues with the representation from the get-go. Mr. Rakofsky had apparently never tried a case before. And he was not admitted to practice in Washington D.C.

Things did not improve during trial. Mr. Rakofsky apparently did not understand the technical requirements for admission of scientific evidence. As a result, he could not get into evidence important information about the accused’s use of drugs. The case ended in a mistrial. Mr. Rakofsky mistakenly believed that was a good thing. It was not, as his client faced re-trial on the same very serious charges.

Going from trying no cases to handling a murder case is a bit like deciding after medical school that you are now qualified to perform coronary bypass surgery. As with performing surgery, trial of cases is a skill best learned slowly with tutelage. You start after training with small and easy matters–traffic court, for example, or misdemeanors, or small-scale property damage claims–and then you build up over time.

As licensed professionals, attorneys have certain responsibilities. Here is a simple rule: Attorneys may only accept employment on matters on which they are competent.

Mr. Rakofsky did not understand the standards for admission of scientific evidence–here toxicology. By his own account, he offered key toxicology evidence, which the trial judge rejected. Mr. Rakofsky apparently did not completely understand the rules of scientific evidence. To be fair, they are technical and sometimes hard to understand. But that’s why young attorneys need to handle small and simple cases before they can try complicated high-stakes matters.

Various law bloggers correctly picked up on Mr. Rakofsky’s shortcomings and, more important, what the story says about internet marketing of legal services. A nice collection of of blog posts can be found here at The Trial Warrior Blog.

A wiser young lawyer would have treated this whole sordid affair as a time to re-think. Sadly, Mr. Rakofsky has not yet come upon wisdom. Instead, an attorney acting on his behalf sued The Washington Post and various law bloggers, including bloggers Antonin Pribetic (The Trial Warrior Blog), Scott Greenfield (Simple Justice), Jamison Koehler (Koehler Law Blog), Mark W. Bennett (Defending People), Brian L. Tannebaum (My Law License), Carolyn Elefant (My Shingle), Eric L. Mayer, Above the Law, the American Bar Association, ABA Journal. Sorry to all omitted from the list. The complaint, in what has been labeled Rakofsky vs. The Internet*, is a triumph of ridiculously poor lawyering.
I have not counted, but I am told there are 74 defendants.

The complaint admits to some of the goofiness. It sets out the toxicology problem I noted above. It alleges irrelevant allegations. It implicitly posits a standard of practice that I think is fairly labeled as The Rakofsky standard.

There is a glaring problem from the outset. Scott Greenfield, Mark Bennett and Antonin Pribetic point out that young Rakofsky and his Rakofsky standard plaintiff’s counsel do not understand New York jurisdiction. They have sued out-of-state defendants and even the Canadian Trial Warrior in New York on a defamation claim. A problem:  New York long arm jurisdiction does not apply to defamation claims.That likely spells quick ending for all but the New York defendants.

The case has generated a lot of well-deserved ridicule on Twitter and from law blogs. As a casual observer, I can only laugh at the young man and his current counsel. They have taken a bad experience and compounded it by a factor of 10 by filing this case. While the Rakofsky standard is generous, I am betting that their future work on this case may violate it.

For my Twitter friends and the Rakofsky 74, I have volunteered to serve on the defense team. True, I have never handled the defense of a defamation claim in my 25 years of experience. As well, I am not admitted to practice in New York. But under the Rakofsky standard, I am totally competent to try their case.


*Scott A. Greenfield a New York criminal defense lawyer who writes the pretty damned amazing Simple Justice law blog claims credit for having coined the phrase.

The other blogs listed above contain some of the best damned law writing out there. Even though I do not practice in Canada, I regularly read The Trial Warrior Blog. Ditto for Bennett at Defending People and Tannenbaum at My Law License work and Simple Justice. The latter three focus on criminal law but consistently hit deeper and more important issues in the justice system.

Antonin I. Pribetic says

Thanks David for your collegial support. While I would be honored to have you represent me---pro hac vice or otherwise---based upon your post and others, the "Rakofsky 74" will soon climb into the triple digits.

Comments for this post are closed.