Over at Defending People, Mark Bennett is curating a Compendium of Rakofsky v. Internet Blog Posts to keep readers (and putative defendants) updated in the Rakofsky v. The Internet defamation lawsuit commenced by [insert pejorative here] Joseph Rakofsky and his multi-jurisdictional law firm, Rakofsky Law Firm.
Apparently, Rakofsky also had a website (the link is to an archived version saved by Mark Bennett- h/t to commenter David Shulman) advertising his legal services in Connecticut. This may pose a problem given that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has no record of a CT licensed attorney named Rakofsky:
Since I neither practice in Connecticut, nor am I admitted there pro hac vice, I defer to CT licensed attorneys to opine on whether advertising one’s legal services in a state where one is unlicensed is kosher. I do not know whether Rakofsky’s associates/partners/colleagues have pro hac vice status in CT, but none of them are licensed to practice in CT (run the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Attorney/Firm Inquiry to satisfy yourself).
Meanwhile, my fellow defendant and esteemed colleague, Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog, throws down the proverbial gauntlet in his reply post: Joseph Rakofsky — I Have An Answer For You.
While my Latin is admittedly rusty, the sage advice that Turkewitz graciously offers to Joseph Rakofsky and his attorney, Richard Borzouye, Esq. may also be loosely translated to:
Vade in alvum in motu abstracta atque casside in aures.
Finally, as more blawgers continue to join the fray by expressing their opinions and being added as defendants in the Rakofsky v. The Internet litigation, I leave you with this variation of the Streisand Effect, which I have coined as the “Rakofsky Effect”:
UPDATED: Please also read Mirriam Seddiq’s thoughtful post at Not Guilty: “Chiming In”.
Related articles
- To My Fellow “Rakofsky 74′ers”: I Salute You (thetrialwarrior.com)
- Of Nuclear Bombs and Fallout (or Crap is King) (militaryunderdog.com)
- The Rakofsky 74 (militaryunderdog.com)
- Lying Piece of $%^&. With Screenshot as Evidence (militaryunderdog.com)
- Lawyer of the Month: Lots Of Things Mistrials Can Win You (abovethelaw.com)
Tags: Connecticut, Law, Lawyer, Pro hac vice, Washington Post, Wikipedia
May 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm |
The Turk link is wrong — you re-posted the Old Man Bennett link.
Otherwise, great.
May 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
Thanks. Link corrected.
May 18, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
[...] and a Symptom The Streisand Effect, or: What Joseph Rakofsky’s Been Up To Lately … The Rakofsky Effect Not Guilty: Chiming In (As of 1238h CDT 18 May 2011. More as they pop up on Google [...]
May 18, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
Minor correction. You said “Apparently, Rakofsky also has a website advertising his legal services in Connecticut.”
I think that should say that Rakofsky HAD a website. All of his websites seem to have been taken down. You’re link isn’t to his current website but to a historical record of it, which I believe is hosted by Mark Bennett.
May 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
Thanks for your two cents. It still isn’t enough for you to get sued, though.
May 21, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
[...] which lead Scott Greenfield to dub the case Rakofsky v. Internet, Antonin I. Pribetic to discover The Rakofsky Effect, and Nathaniel Burney beat me to the one thing I thought I might have to add, thus ensuring that [...]
February 11, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
[...] When bloggers criticized Rakofsky for filing the ill advised lawsuit, he decided to set his bad judgment to Ludicrous Speed and amended the complaint to add those critics, thereby creating what is now known as the “Rakofsky Effect.” [...]
January 6, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
[...] as a frivolous SLAPP suit, most of who live out of state. Then when people blogged his SLAPP suit, he decided to add them in by filing an Amended Complaint. Rakofsky’s lawsuit weighed in at 82 pages with 218 [...]