Lo and Behold, it appears that this blog is a defendant along with 73 others. I have not (and will not) read the full complaint beyond the "parties" section, but you can see it here.
As co-defendant Leah Weaver has noted, this suit is obviously designed to get people to retract their statements, but will likely have a "Streisand" effect of backfiring. As co-defendant Jeff Gamso points out, Rakofsky should really stop digging himself deeper. Another co-defendant views being a defendant along with the Washington Post as a badge of honor. As my regard for the national media is low, I'm not sure I go that far. Co-defendant Carolyn Elefant isn't so gracious, but has pledged to "not be bullied." Finally, co-defendant Antonin Pribetic took the approach of mindful sarcasm after reading the New York long-arm statute:
I will demur in disclosing my position on the merits of the defamation lawsuit, since I haven’t read it yet. Personally, I think that any defamation claim arising from my post is resoundingly [redacted] and I strongly recommend that both the plaintiff and his counsel take my advice and go [redacted].Finally, co-defendant Scott Greenberg did some digging and found that Rakofsky's attorney is as puffery-inclined as his client. A running list of blogs with commentary can be found here.
For my own part, I though the best approach to this issue would write the supposed plaintiff an open letter outlining my feelings.
Dear Mr. Rakofsky:
The simple and crude response to this frivolous joke of a lawsuit would be "suck my balls," and believe me, I contemplated it. But there are better things to discuss.
In my original entry, my one paragraph summation of your story contained no new factual allegations and merely repeated what I had gained from a good faith reading of all available sources on the subject. Finding the Washington Post and the ABA Journal credible sources, I posted them using quotation marks where appropriate.
The only factual allegations in the second article are repeated statements made by your own client's grandmother that were reported verbatim in the Washington Post.
To both of these factual sets, I added my opinion and interpretation to illustrate the problem of attorney oversupply and a broken law school system. If these factual elements were in error, I will gladly correct them. But I stand by my opinions assuming the validity of those facts, and I hasten to note that as a first-semester 1L I would have understood that you have no real claim for libel in this, Joseph.
Nor, it seems, do you have much common sense. A simple email to the same address you listed in your complaint could have cured whatever issues you have with my previous posts. Although this would have been the straightforward, cost-free, internet gentleman's way of resolving our apparent differences, I never received such an email. Instead, you tacked my name onto a laundry list of other idiot internet bloggers in a really, really stupid lawsuit that will only lead to more mockery and infamy. Not only do you need to find a better lawyer, you need a find a better PR person.
But above all, Joseph, I want you to know that I don't hate you, nor did I have any intent to speak ill of you. I haven't an ounce of malice or spite or ire towards you. If anything, I have complete and utter sympathy for you. Empathy, even.
I'm ultimately your ally, Joseph, because you're a victim, just like most of our generation of law graduates. To make it into and through law school, you obviously have higher than average intelligence. And it's clear that you have an entrepreneurial spirit. You apparently made a series of major mistakes, but honestly, I don't think it's your fault. You entered a system that, sadly, is rigged against people like you and me. You were given an accredited education and a law license and told to "go get 'em." You did that, and now you're being punished because you decided to hang a shingle and do what it was you thought you were trained to do. I think you were foolish, absolutely, but the ultimate blame, I think, goes directly to the system that produced you (and, it appears, your current attorney). Heck, I don't even think you should lose your law license.
But no competent court in this world would let this absurd crockery move forward. If anything, your filing of this hilarious monstrosity proves that you're a naive idiot who has much to learn about the world. And I say that, too, without hatred; my own mother calls me an idiot, as does my significant other, my friends, my siblings, etc. Having one's own foolishness pointed out is a good thing. It helps us learn, and for the last few months, you've had a wellspring of wonderful advice premised on calling out your mistakes.
It's in your best interests to take that advice and stop "digging yourself deeper." Stop bringing attention to these stories. History would counsel you to do such. The money you have spent on this silly lawsuit could have been spent taking out an ad in the New York Times or the Washington Post giving your side of the story. Instead, you've just pissed off/provided humor for a bunch of lawyers and media conglomerates. That's not a good course of action under any circumstances.
In the interest of helping you get your life back on track, I'm going to offer you a "settlement" of sorts without waiving any defense to this meritless garbage: (1) you dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety; (2) I give you an entry on RDTTL, with priority for a twenty-four hour period, where you can tell your life story. Email me at j.dog84@ymail.com if you wish to accept and we can work out the details from there. The non-negotiable offer is good until Friday at midnight, eastern time, and I believe it's by far the most charitable thing you're going to be offered.
My goal with this blog is ultimately to help change the system so that no one is again put in your position, Joseph, feeling pressured to take cases beyond their grasp for low-balled fees because the labor market is so saturated. I apologize if I repeated the ABA Journal or Washington Post's errors, but I will not apologize for my analysis of the situation as my good-faith reading led me to understand it.
If you choose to continue with this high comedy, I will laugh at your expense, defend my words vigorously, and contemplate legal action against you and the two-bit firm that brought this suit.
But as your ally, I hope you take the right path, because if you really want to get your career and life back on track and move beyond this debacle, this ain't going to help. If you can't see that the majority of people who comment on your story really don't hate you, and you continue to press this one-man suicide mission and only make your situation worse, well, then, you can suck my balls, dude.
Sincerely,
J-dog.