Update on Rakofsky Story

This is from three days ago, but I think most commenters missed it and I didn't see it until late last night, but the Washington Post did a follow-up on the Joseph Rakofsky story (the recent Touro grad who decided to defend one charged with homicide in a different state). The Post found the defendant's grandmother, and her explanation of how he wound up to be her grandson's attorney is - well - completely unsurprising:

Watson, 71, said she told Rakofsky that she wasn’t interested in hiring him even for the murder case because the family couldn’t afford the $25,000 to $30,000 normally charged in such cases.

But Rakofsky, 33, called her, Watson said. And again. She said he told her that he had worked on criminal cases before. And he told her that he would charge $10,000. Watson decided to “give him a chance,” she said, impressed with his tenacity and his willingness to work on her grandson’s case, especially for such a low fee.

Note there's multiple dynamics at work here. Race-to-the-bottom fees? Check. High-pressure sales tactics? Check. Exaggerated representations to clients to get them to hire a desperate soul? Check.

And remember all that verbiage deans spit out about how more lawyers equals lower fees for poor people? Isn't that exactly what happened here? Isn't this the ABA's wet-dream: a family priced out of the homicide defense market can now buy the product because Touro - God bless them - keeps spitting out attorneys so desperate for work they'll do it for 50-75% off. Poor people can finally afford representation - hallelujah!

But, like settling for a cut-rate prostitute, it had its consequences. Of course, the fact that I just compared cut-rate attorneys to $25 prostitutes should signal that something's wrong, even if it's mildly funny-'cause-its-true.

Web sites and bar licenses don’t provide enough information, said Saul Singer, senior legal ethics counsel for the D.C. Bar. Potential clients need to get references and check out a lawyer’s reputation, Singer said.

Yeah, that sort-of kills the whole idea of this being a well-regulated "profession," doesn't it?

And to complete the hucksterism:

During a two-hour phone conversation, Watson said, Rakofsky declined to refund her money.

I don't know if I can say this enough, but a 15k attorney surplus each year leads to more Lionel Hutzes on the market, so this should not be seen as a one-time story. Because many students are swamped with debt and pigeonholed as lawyers, they will not easily exit the market. Many 2009 and 2010 graduates of varying quality are still looking for jobs. The desperation level will rise along with the ethical tensions as young lawyers try to price themselves competitively.

For better or worse, this is the system our elites have created. The true tragedy here is that their response is not to fix the system, but to circle the wagons and place the blame entirely on the Rakofsky's of the world. As I've said before Rakofsky is an idiot worthy of blame. But he's got a big-time accomplice in a system that fails at multiple points.