LawCast 201: My podcast interview with Charon QC

February 6, 2012

Many thanks to Mike Semple Piggot (a.k.a. Charon QC) for an enjoyable interview at Charon QC UK Law Blog where we discuss a range of topics, including the limits of lawyer free speech on Twitter, social media generally and the state of legal services and legal marketing.

Listen to the podcast (LawCast 201)

***

And…thank you to Cassons For Counsel,  Justgodirect.co.uk and  David Phillips & Partners Solicitors , Contact Law UK Solicitors for sponsoring the podcasts and the free student materials on Insite Law.


Of Parsimony and Ockham’s Razor

January 31, 2012

The Ockraz Logo

“I offer no apology; I am the victim here, not a miscreant.”~ Joseph Rakofsky

Occam’s razor, also known as Ockham’s razor, or in Latin referred to as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is the principle that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually offers the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

My co-defendant and local counsel in the Rakofsky v. The Internet lawsuit, Eric Turkewitz has  posted a new update #4 which includes a new court filing by the plaintiff, Joseph Rakofsky:

Update #4, 1/31/12 – Rakofsky’s Reply to other defense opposition to the motion in the Appellate Division to lift the stay for him only. No response to our papers (which were served 1/26/12, one day before they were due to be served): RakofskyReply. The opposing papers to which he refers are here: Teschner  (Yampolsky) Opp and Weissman (Reuters) Opp

Some may describe Rakofsky’s Reply Affidavit and legal writing in uncharitable terms:

bewildering

Delphic

cryptic

enigmatic

fathomless

impenetrable

incognizable

inconceivable

inscrutable

mystifying

perplexing

puzzling

sibylline

unfathomable

ungraspable

unimaginable

unintelligible

unknowable

Not I. I merely report the facts in evidence. Yet, the correct adjective escapes me…Ah, yes, “incomprehensible”, or as in Rakofsky’s own words:

The subtleties of Rakofsky’s formidable legal argument and rhetorical flourishes are exemplified in the following precatory phrasing:

As Ken @ Popehat remarked on Twitter:

par·si·mo·ni·ous (pär s -m n – s). adj. Excessively sparing or frugal. par si·mo ni·ous·ly adv. par si·mo ni·ous·ness n.

Whatever one may think of Mr. Rakofsky or his lawsuit, one cannot call him parsimonious in his prose.

As Edmund Burke once said:

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.

Or, in the immortal words of Titus Livius:

There is nothing worse than being ashamed of parsimony or poverty.

The day of judicial reckoning fast approaches….

Previous Related Posts:


UPDATED: Some Ole Fashioned Reference Checking

December 5, 2011
© Peter Steiner, The New Yorker

“You are what Google says you are.” Adrian Fachetti

“I read it on the internet, so it must be true.” Anonymous

In “How to Fix (0r Kill) Web Data About You“, Riva Richmond of the New York Times writes,

As more of our social lives, shopping sprees and dating misadventures take place online, we leave behind, purposely or not, a growing supply of personal information.

Marketers, employers, suitors and even thieves and stalkers are piecing together mosaics of who we are. Even when it is accurate, it may not present a pretty picture.

The harder part is masking the information. It’s often possible to remove information yourself, though it will probably be a time consuming ordeal.

The “right to be forgotten” movement is less about personal privacy and more about reputation management (although Google and Facebook have each trampled on users’ personal privacy until legislated or sued into compliance). For some, the “right to be forgotten”  is the virtual hangover felt by those who crave attention without  merit;  fame without talent;  success without hard work;  respect without achievement.

Richmond is right when she says “removing information about yourself is a time consuming ordeal”, but it is possible. There are always risk takers who hope that no one will bother to check their references. Most people, particularly lawyers, are too busy with the distractions of daily life and often take what other say on the Web at face value. This complacency is counter-intuitive, particularly given that among the various common personality traits referenced in the Hildebrandt Baker Robbins study,  lawyers tended to be “self-critical and temperamental” and “resistant to authority and skeptical of others.” I suppose all it takes is a social media strategy: start with a friendly, smiling avatar, then create a website or blog, join Twitter and slowly amass followers, retweet others with positive feedback and no one will be the wiser.

The foregoing foreshadows a comment left on a post by Omar Ha-Redeye at slaw.ca entitled,  “Avvo’s Top Legal Blogs “  , which caught my attention: Read the rest of this entry »


The Impending Death of Internet Freedom and Personal Privacy: Hallowe’en Edition

October 31, 2011
Jack-o'-lantern

Image by wwarby via Flickr

Just in time for Hallowe’en, here are some scary tales about the impending death of internet freedom and personal privacy: Read the rest of this entry »


The Rakofsky Effect: It Actually Works!

October 26, 2011

1. My post coining the phrase based upon my reply to Nathan Burney on Twitter:

2.   Someone else then submits the phrase to The Urban Dictionary:


3.  Rakfosky then confirms the hypothesis and proves the theory by filing a new Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit .As Eric Turkewitz, (co-defendant and local counsel assisting pro hac vice counsel Marc Randazza, representing 20 of the Rakfosky defendants) notes:

[Rakofsky] has now filed a motion to amend the complaint a second time, with a 300-page whopper including 1,248 paragraphs. He has 78 causes of action and demands, and, if my calculations are correct, he demands $145,000,000 in damages.

Part 1 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is here and Part 2 is here.

4. Finally, it appears I am no longer the lone Canadian in this internet version of Franz Kafka’s The Trial. Welcome Canadian Lawyer Magazine and Reuters Canada as co-defendants! (see page 167 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint).

See also, Ken’s post at Popehat.com: The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 962 other followers