Marketing Yourself As The Lawyer (Coward) You Are

Sometimes I wonder whether to write about the things that just make me embarrassed to be a lawyer. There are things so stunning, so pathetic, that I have trouble transferring thought to words.

But this is something you need to know.

While I have devoted much of the space here to talking about lawyers who lie on the internet and pretend they are someone else, this is a case where two lawyers have allowed another "lawyer" to treat them like a hostage in a third world country, (Link takes you to apology of Lori Palmieri to Joseph Rakofsky, it has no title as a title would give it "google juice" and not be a very good marketing tactic, better not to be able to find it when looking to hire Palmieri because it would damage her marketing plan), spewing propaganda for the purpose of saving themselves.

And they have done so magnificently.

Their next move should be to advise their state bar that they no longer have the character and fitness to practice law and are surrendering their licenses.

They have both settled a case, caved in to the plaintiff, where there is no jurisdiction over them.

Let me say that again.

They couldn't lose.

They couldn't even be ordered to attend one court hearing.

Nothing would have ever happened.

Settling a case under these circumstances is called incompetence.

And of course these lawyers have their defenders.

But defending incompetence and cowardliness is embracing those concepts as acceptable.

Lori Palmieri, markets herself as a fighter - she's "your key to justice." Former prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer. She gives no appearance that she would ever cave in to nothing. Never. Ever. Nor that she would criticise those that chose to fight. Palmieri graduated from my law school and claims membership in FACDL, but I've never met her, and never heard her name, anywhere.

Martha Sperry, well I'm not sure she practices law, as she spends her days blogging advising on shiny toys and apps. But she is a lawyer, and she should know that if there's no jurisdiction, there's no jurisdiction.

In fact, Martha wrote:

I was sued by Mr. Rakofsky and I do not feel his legal claim has merit against me. But I believe in the legal system and that is where I feel this dispute should be resolved, not the blogosphere.

But then hypocrisy set in...

Martha wrote several posts in apology, and then shucked and jived in the comments section like no other in response to the questions of real lawyers, and former co-defendants.

She resolved her case, in the blogosphere.

And of course she claims that people are "messaging" her in support, as all tech hacks and cowards do. We haven't seen any of these messages, but I assume (if they really exist) they are from the people who think Martha is wonderful and nothing she does is wrong because she knows a lot about Google and shiny toys.

And it's not even that these "awwyers" settled, it's their attack on the fighters, those who understand the law, who really practice law, and who won't be bullied (there's that word again) by a lawyer with no case.

It's the, "uh, well, I, uh, what are you asking me, uh, well, I, uh," responses.

Why did they settle?

Fear.

Couldn't be bothered.

Maybe they're broke and can't afford to file a motion to dismiss.

Maybe they don't know any lawyers who would help them.

Maybe a combination of all three.

But if you check out their internet presences, you'd never know the background.

And don't we love that?

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

If Joseph Rakofsky Had A Mentor, And Other Wild Ideas

Scott Greenfield described it with clarity this morning:

In the beginning, this was a matter of a young lawyer who did what so many others would have done, reached beyond himself for the dollar at the expense of a murder defendant, Dontrell Deaner. At this point, most have forgotten that this was about saving the Dontrell Deaners, the defendants entitled to competent counsel because their lives depended on it. Instead, they got puffery.

But it now appears that Joseph Rakofsky isn't like the other young lawyers who want to be something they're not. Most of them would have learned something from the universal condemnation. Most would have grasped their horrible mistake quickly. A few would have taken longer, but eventually come to the harsh realization that they blew any chance at redemption.

This one, however, has enjoyed no epiphany. This one will fight to the death. He will add, and redo, and redouble, and fight. This isn't tenacity, an excellent trait in a lawyer. This isn't mere stupidity. This is pathologic obsession.

Mark Bennett had some comments on young Joseph's predicted assault on the only lawyer who would add his name to 2011's version of the Titanic:

By filing suit for his pal Rakofsky, Borzouye—whether he knew it or not—put his professional reputation and his bank account on the line along with his precious time. It wasn’t much of a favor to Rakofsky—a greater mitzvah would have been to dissuade Rakofsky from filing suit at all (I don’t know if he tried, but see “First,” above)—but it is not entirely out-of-line for a lawyer, when a friend is intent on destroying himself in court, to come along for the ride to try to minimize the damage.

Oh Joseph, I've seen this too often. I haven't seen it from lawyers in their infancy, but from lawyers well in to their careers who have decided that the world is against them, that attacking anyone with a heartbeat and voice will lead to some type of victory, somewhere.

It never ends well.

The lawyers I speak of are disbarred. The ones who felt attacked, and went on the attack, never knowing when to stop attacking, and continuing after the last interested person turned away - the last interested person besides a Bar prosecutor.

I think of Charlie Sheen.

Charlie had a problem, he took that problem and attacked anyone who spoke of the problem. He went on the attack, and made himself the story.

He lost his job, his kids, some friends, the respect of those who once respected him, and then all of a sudden, it all stopped.

Then it got quiet. Then we heard the sincere apologies, the evidence that he had moved on and was looking for a life away from the past.

It worked.

So how did it happen?

I have to think someone put their hand on Charlie's shoulder and said "stop."

"Stop."

"You're not 'winning,' you're losing, badly."

While the story of Sheen's demise fades, the talk of his new life becomes the lesson for many. "Hey, look at Charlie Sheen," will be the phrase spoken to those who think they can't get out of their own way.

Which brings me back to Joseph Rakofsky.

Young Joseph could have been a popular speaker on the young lawyer circuit. I said from the beginning of his failed life as a plaintiff that had he taken his experience and turned it in to a teaching lesson - many of the young (marketing) lawyers may have learned something. Had young Joseph stood up and said "don't do what I did, don't take on a case unprepared, don't over-market yourself, don't be who you are not for the sake of building a practice," he would have been a strong voice in the "I speak from experience" camp.

Instead, he amended his complaint.

And so I wonder where is Joseph Rakofsky's mentor? Does he have one? Has he had some who he's now cast away? Are you one of them thinking "I tried to talk to him, but he knew better?"

Joseph Rakofsky claims he can't sleep, he's lost business, his life is the result of "internet mobbing."

But the last time I heard Joseph Rakofsky's name before yesterday, before he said "I'm back," was, well, I don't remember.

Maybe Joseph Rakofsky has a mentor. Maybe young Joseph is a bad mentee. Maybe his short time as a lawyer has taught him that becoming the poster boy for circus-type litigation is a road to success.

Young Joseph is on his way to nowhere. He doesn't know that, he'll never agree with that, but then again, I wonder if anyone is telling him that.

Nothing he is doing will accomplish anything positive in his life, or career.

But I'm not the one to tell him that.

Maybe someone else knows better.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

News For The Dedicated And Proud Alumni Of The University Of St. Thomas School Of Law

I don't know anyone who graduated from Minnesota's University of St. Thomas' School of Law (not to be confused with my hometown's St. Thomas University School of Law), but I trust the latest alumni newsletter is going to contain some wonderful news - "we're out of the Joseph Rakofsky case!"

That's right, the meritless defamation case rife with jurisdictional issues (there was none over this defendant) is now a part of the law school's history. Alumni can be proud to know that their law school, where students are taught advocacy, good legal writing, and of course, an occasional legal premise about frivolous law suits, sent Rakofsky packing with a confidential settlement (that someone, wonder who, leaked.)

While all the other defendants are spending their time showing the world the ridiculous law suit, filing motions to dismiss and then probably motions for sanctions, the University of St. Thomas decided it was a better move to pay Rakofsky $5,000 to settle.

The 367 alumni that donated to the annual fund need not worry, as this money was not paid from your annual donations to the school, those will continue to be used for capital improvements (maybe a new courtroom to show students where they may wind up if they don't settle frivilous lawsuits) and endowed chairs (a professor in the area of "go-away" money may be on the horizon).

As Mark Bennett puts it:

By settling with Rakofsky, the law school and Hackerson have painted a great big target on themselves for anyone else who wants to file a frivolous lawsuit. (Hear that, disgruntled unemployed St. Thomas grads? File that lawsuit; they’ll settle for nuisance value!)

You may wonder why the University of St. Thomas chose to be the lone of over 80 defendants to settle. Well, what was the alternative? To fight? To show Rakofsky that this is a law school and law schools know the law?

Is that really worth spending more than $5,000?

By the way, the school website photo of the University of St. Thomas staff member (your librarian) that was named in the suit was, contrary to prevailing thought, not taken after the settlement.

The University of St. Thomas is celebrating it's 10th year "integrating faith and reason in the search for the truth."

I think they need to integrate an understanding of the law, to start.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Rakofsky v. The Internet, The Defense Responds

Here are the first pleadings on behalf of the defense in Rakofsky v. Internet.

You may find of particular interest the Affidavit and Trial Transcript.

Have a nice weekend.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Oprah Effect: It Wasn't Joseph Rakofsky's Fault

For those that remember The Oprah Winfrey Show in the beginning, before the book club, and before the giveaways, it's popularity was based on a concept of nothing being your fault. You weren't fat because you ate too much, you were fat because your mother hated you. You didn't have an issue with your kid because of your kid's behavior, it was because of something that happened to you 35 years ago. Nothing in your life that happened was your fault, blame could be squarely be placed on someone or something else, in front of an applauding audience. Oprah made many happy with themselves by the notion that "it's not your fault.

Joseph Rakofsky took on a murder case in the infancy of his legal career, and the results were not good (unless you ask him). A mistrial was granted, and the judge, and a juror had their say.

After many wrote on the issue, it was only a matter of time before someone, J-Dog is his name, presented the Oprah Effect, placing blame on society, law school specifically:

The system is completely broken. It cannot filter out people like Rakofsky; instead it allows them to flow through by the thousands and onto an unsuspecting marketplace. It has no training safeguards to ensure that people handling murder cases can actually handle murder cases. The more hubris-filled unemployed attorneys will do exactly what Rakofsky did; his story made the rounds, others' do not. But he is by no means unique. He is exactly what happens when you license type A personalities to do things before they've actually shown they can do it.

Now to be fair, J-Dog isn't kind to young Rakofsky, but he tempers the criticism with justification:

Is Joseph Rakofsky an idiot? Absolutely. Let us count the ways.

But he's also a symptom of one of the fundamental problems of attorney oversupply. Back in December, I pointed out that having a large mass of desperate unemployed attorneys can put ethical obligations into jeopardy in the context of foreclosure mills. There, attorneys looking for a job - any job - would have an incentive to sacrifice morals to bring in a paycheck.

Blogger and criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett responded comparing Rakofsky to another writers description of a lawyer "Francis:"

Maybe Rakofsky was doing what he was trained to do, but somehow there are lawyers like “Francis” of Rakofsky’s generation who don’t do what Rakofsky did (by which I mean “marketing himself deceptively, including paying Yodle to do his deceptive advertising for him,” rather than “taking on a case that he was not competent to handle without adult supervision”) and succeed nevertheless. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

J-Dog, chimed in,, making sure to clarify he doesn't support Rakofsky's conduct, but can explain:

But morality is only completely black and white to fools. In judging his actions, I think it would be folly to ignore the system that bred him and pin the problem sole on one individual’s failings. To spare you my hour-long lecture, we currently have a legal education system that licenses 12,000 extra attorneys each year than the market demands. These recent graduates are generally devoid of practical legal knowledge, up to their hairline in non-dischargable debt, and carrying a degree that limits their job prospects.

In such situations (and the current one isn’t merely recessionary), the temptation to behave unethically rises dramatically. A starving man is more likely to steal, even if stealing is wrong. Many in the current generation see puffery as the only way to stand out in a very crowded field. They’ve been bred to put everything imaginable on their resume, and judging my some linkedin profiles I’ve seen recently, I have absolutely no doubt it will continue into the future.

The commenter makes some points. Yes, we continue to produce a great number of lawyers, above the demand by the coveted BigLaw, and even government jobs. To those that knee-jerk respond "there's too many lawyers," maybe, but in truth there are too many shitty lawyers, too many that hate the profession, their clients, and never wanted to be lawyers in the first place. Are those that care about their future in the profession (read: future in the profession) so willing to puff (read: lie) and take on matters in which they have no competence just for a little publicity and name recognition?

Joseph Rakofsky got publicity and name recognition.

There is no question that the crowded field of new lawyers has caused some bad behavior, thousands of law grads clamoring for clients, trying it on their own without a stitch of knowledge of how the law or practice works. But let's not make it OK, and let's not ignore the ethical, hard working, young lawyers trying to make it in this economy.

That's really the problem, that we make it OK. While the commenter goes to great lengths to say he doesn't think it's OK, there's plenty reading that comment who want to stand up and applaud.

With Oprah, America was taught not to look in the mirror, and plenty of people are happy to live that way.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Meet Richard Borzouye, of Hartt Borzouye? Joseph Rakofsky's Lawyer

Now that the internet has been sued by Joseph Rakofsky, there is no better time to meet the man that filed what purports to be a lawsuit on his behalf for defamation.

Meet Richard Borzouye of Hartt Borzouye, I think. I'm not sure. Read on.

Mark Bennett already compiled some fascinating information on Mr. Rakofsky's lawyer, including that Rakofsky lists him as a member of his law firm.

Borzouye has his own firm, with a website that says he has "New York & Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys," but under the attorneys section of his website, well, I don't think "Coming Soon" is a member of the Bar.

Here's some more:

According to his Facebook page, Borzouye attended Thoams M. Cooley Law School. I think that's Thomas Cooley, but I know they don't teach spelling in law school. He graduated in 2001, and was admitted to the Bar in 2004.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Borzouye is and has been a partner at Hartt Borzouye since 2004 where he is a Criminal Defense Attorney and Civil Litigator. I'm not sure that's correct though, as you'll see below. Hartt Borzouye didn't exist in 2004. He is also a White Collar Criminal Defense Attorney/Litigator at the Borzouye Law Firm, P.C. Who says you can't be in two places at one time?

Borzouye also enjoys the endorsement on Avvo of his new partner. That endorsement coming from James Hartt. You wouldn't know from his Avvo profile that James Hartt is his partner, because on that profile, he's Borzouye Law Firm.

According to the official Hartt Borzouye twitter page: Hartt & Borzouye, PC will be a boutique litigation law firm with a focus on employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower litigation as well as criminal defense.

I don't know when this will happen. But it clearly - will - happen. I couldn't find a website for Hartt Borzouye. Maybe it's in the works.

I know this didn't happen - according to this website, Hartt Borzouye, P.C. was incorporated on March 2, 2011 and is listed as "Construction and General Contractors, Commercial and Residential Construction Companies and General Contractors." That's got to be a mistake.

Borzouye's partner, if he's even still his partner, James Hartt, offers advice on Facebook, and makes this promise:

Attorney James Hartt will do his very best to offer helpful and competent legal advice to all Group Members. That's nice. I always like when a lawyer does his very best to offer competent legal advice. It's a plus.

You can't just ask Hartt questions on twitter though, because his page is protected, so you're gonna have to ask his permission.

I'm going to stop here, because I think playing this game below is easier at this point.



Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Joseph Rakofsky's Second Futile Race To The Courthouse

You remember Joseph Rakofsky, the poster child for today's lawyer marketing circus.

He took on a murder case, the first case he ever took to trial. It was a disaster.

Many wrote about it. Now, instead of learning a lesson about how becoming a good lawyer takes more than a good web presence, he's decided to expand his reputation as a buffoon by filing a lawsuit against.... the internet.

Joseph, oh Joseph. From whom are you seeking advice? Haven't you ever been to an Andrew Dice Clay show where he makes an example of someone in the audience who is trying to get attention? Dice likes to say this:

"You did this to you, I didn't do this to you."

It was only a matter of time before a young lawyer, trying to "fake it until you make it" would be outed.

It's been done.

And you, Joseph, are now trying to blame others for your lack of experience and lack of ability to capably represent a criminal defendant.

You've learned nothing.

Which is exactly who you will become at the end of all of this.

This is my opinion. It comes with 16 years of experience. Do with it what you wish.

Good luck on your second case in your career. This time, luckily it won't be a client who has entrusted their life to you who will lose, it will be you.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.