My (Hopefully) Final Entry on Rakofsky

I have tried to be as reasonable as possible on the entire Joseph Rakofsky fiasco and I plan to continue that course of action as much as I am able.

As part of the biggest olive branch I can possibly extend, I have decided to correct the possible technical errors in my original entry on the fiasco. Originally, paragraph number 2 read as follows:

To refresh everyone's memory, Rakofsky, a 2009 Touro grad with very little actual experience, and a law license in New Jersey, decided to try a murder case in Washington, D.C. Although he (smartly) solicited the aid of local counsel, he repeatedly let him own judgment trump his assistant's, actually boasted about his inexperience in his opening statement, awkwardly asked an investigator to "trick" a witness, and basically "won" a mistrial by incompetence (which he bragged about on Facebook).

The edited, new version reads like this:

To refresh everyone's memory, Rakofsky, a 2009 Touro grad with very little actual experience, and a law license in New Jersey, decided to try a murder case in Washington, D.C. As one might expect, it did not go well, and multiple people, including the judge and the Washington Post courthouse reporter, found Rakofsky's performance a sign of "incompetence." I trust their judgment.

I view these changes as technical and not altering the "gist" of the statements about Rakofsky; consequently, they do not represent a retraction or an admission of falsity. These changes were made to reflect that the Washington Post may have erred on minor details, including why Rakofsky solicited outside counsel, what that outside counsel's opinion was on the matter (although they were direct quotes), why the judge specifically granted Rakofsky's motion to withdraw, Rakofsky's motivations in doing what he did, what the meaning of the word "trick" is when talking to an investigator/interrogator, etc. I remain apathetic and entirely neutral on these points as they're ultimately irrelevant to my point(s).

In substance, my entry does not change one bit. I only used Rakofsky's story to illustrate a fundamental problem with the legal field that will affect our (my and Rakofsky's) generation the most. Whatever damage had been done to Rakofsky's career was done long before I summed up the Washington Post story in a simple introductory paragraph.

In any event, I stand by my opinion that Rakofsky is an idiot who went out of his league and failed miserably. I also stand by my criticisms of his website and the content of my second entry (discussing his own client's grandmother's explanation of events). I will not be bullied into contrition and I reiterate my opinion that filing this lawsuit was a completely brainless decision.

On Tuesday, Rakofsky sent me an email asking for a "a retraction and an apology" (he also expressly said he's not seeking compensation from me...). I wrote him in response that if he provided proof that the facts were different than what the Washington Post claimed, I would be happy to correct my entries and apologize accordingly. Although Rakofsky's story is completely ancillary to the main point of this blog, I'm more than willing to give space to correct perceptions of Rakofsky that may be based on false understandings. After all, if Rakofsky's concern were truly protection of his reputation, he would jump at the opportunity, right?

Instead, I got this:

I have a transcript, but you're the one who wrote the
story and you need to get it yourself. The transcript cost me $1400. I
insist that you not take my word for it and buy the transcript
yourself, which you should have done before you presumed to harm me.

Aside from thinking I "wrote the story," (I didn't) Rakofsky is attempting to set the most ridiculous standard in internet - nay, reporting - history. Those who want to comment on news events publicly can, apparently, no longer rely on major national newspapers for their news. The First Amendment can have no such result, and surely Rakofsky knows better than this (or maybe not).

As many of the co-defendants have noted, Rakofsky sought to use the internet to gloss over his relative inexperience, and now he's upset that it's been used to expose the truth about him to a broader audience. In the interests of telling that truth, I again reiterate my offer: I'll gladly use this space to publish Rakofsky's side of the story if he demonstrates to me that the Washington Post was wrong in substance.

Of course, it looks like Rakofsky posted a comment on the original Washington Post article and instead of pointing out the errors, apparently decided to pretend like a third party (see the comment by "triallawyerusa," which is Rakofsky's email handle) and view the article as follows:

I wonder if this is a case of a clever lawyer learning about the Government's case in a district where he has no reason to practice and then figuring out a way to achieve a Mistrial. If so, the lawyer accomplished a major victory for his client, in which case, the Government must feel duped....I find it very difficult to believe most of what is written, given that it is so poorly written. I would like to see this alleged "email" to the investigator, but that will likely never happen....

Um...yeah. Why didn't this mysterious "triallawyerusa" try to correct the errors by at least pretending to be someone in the courtroom?

In any event, I do have one additional comment on the original entry. It said this:

[H]e is by no means unique.

When you put it in the context of what I was discussing, he isn't. But in terms of this response? That, my friends, seems unique. At least, I hope it is.

Rakofsky also suggested via email that I put myself in his shoes. The glib (and correct) response is that I wouldn't be in his shoes. But playing the hypothetical, I would try to find honest non-legal employment as soon as possible. And then I would work hard. The end.

Unfortunately, I believe, Rakofsky has chosen a different approach to life. I sincerely hope he wakes up and realizes that this is not a good course of action, and one that ultimately does not make him look good; the widespread internet acclaim to Eric Tukewitz's vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo should be his first clue. That is, if common sense didn't intervene in the first place.