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.

Bad News: To Remain In The Profession, You Have To Love The Law

It shouldn't shock me that the headline of Brad Kane's piece in the Hartford Business Journal read "Profession In Turmoil"

Why is the profession in turmoil?

The price of admission is up and interest in being a lawyer is down. The passion that once marked the profession is fading in the face of business pressures as law firms race to be the biggest and most comprehensive, judging lawyers’ value on the revenue they generate.

That's a long answer for: people are getting in to the profession to make money, not to be advocates.

I say that all the time. Some tell me I'm wrong. Others tell me I'm right, and insist that this is the reason everyone becomes lawyers and they don't know anyone who became a lawyer because they wanted to be a lawyer - because the only reason to become a lawyer is to make money.

Something like that.

But I love to see that it's not just me, as others would make be believe, that thinks a slew of law students in the 90's and through present time went to law school for one reason:

Lawyering used to be a profession. Now, over the course of time, it has become just a business,” said Bill Crowe, partner at Hartford law firm Mayo Crowe. “A lot of people are disillusioned because they go to law school thinking they are getting into this dynamic, lucrative career; and they’ve come to realize that often they are just pushing papers around.

The large role money plays in today’s legal market undermines the profession’s higher goals, said Lee Hoffman, a member of Hartford law firm Pullman & Comley LLC. The first job of a lawyer is to make someone’s legal problem their own. The second job is to be an adviser. Once the profession becomes about the paycheck, those tasks are hard to fulfill.

And here's the knife in the heart:

Although the pay is high compared to other professions — the median starting salary for a 2010 University of Connecticut School of Law graduate was $75,000 — a law degree does not lead to a cushy lifestyle. Other professions such as entrepreneur or investment banker are more lucrative with a lower demand on time.

"More lucrative." "Lower demand on time." Now I have the attention of the slacksoisie. See, you don't have to become a lawyer to make money - go, do something else. Get out of the profession. Leave us advocates to try and bring it back up to par - go start a business or become a stockbroker. Just go.

It's already happening, your friends are going elsewhere:

After a significant jump in law school applications in 2009 and 2010, law school applications dropped 11.1 percent nationwide this year. Connecticut’s three law schools — at Yale University, University of Connecticut and Quinnipiac University — saw a 17 percent drop in applications in 2011.

Yippee!

Those people who thought earning a law degree would lead to riches are taking a much broader scope and thinking about if it is going to pay off,” said Karen Lynn DeMeola, UConn School of Law assistant dean for admissions and student finance.

So take that "much broader scope," think about the long hard days of working in a profession that you never wanted to enter but for the cash.

Passion is what keeps lawyers in the profession, said Jeff White, associate at Robinson & Cole and chairman of the Connecticut Bar Association Young Lawyers Section.

Passion.

Look it up.

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

Law School Merit Scholarships vs. Millennial Work Ethic. TKO

The Sunday New York Times exposed the deep dark secret of law school merit scholarships - you have to work hard to keep them. Above The Law, the most read legal blog and home of hundreds of unemployed pajama wearing lawyers spending their days commenting anonymously, (example: The issue would be: WHY FUCK ARE WE GIVING ANY OF THESE ASSHOLES MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE?) picked up the story.

Yes folks, the same generation that has told BigLaw and other legal employers the conditions under which they will grace the legal profession with their wonderous knowledge (free pajamas, 3 days a week at Starbucks - one including a full 4 hour day - vacations "when needed to create a better work/life balance," immediate delivery of the latest Apple product upon release, and a sufficient amount of hugs) is very, very upset that law schools appear to be giving out a lot of free money and requiring a certain grade point average to maintain the scholarship. Shouldn't they get the money because they need it and they're cute?

How can the law schools do this? First they force you to attend at gunpoint by telling you that their graduates get jobs, and now they give you scholarships, require a 3.0, causing those like Alexandra Leumer, 2009 Golden Gate graduate, to "feel snookered."

Sounds like a snookered lawsuit industry may be on the horizon.

Leumer elaborates: By the middle of second semester of that first year, everyone saw the system for what it was,” she said. “We were furious. We realized that statistically, because of the curve, there was no way for many of us to keep our scholarships. But at that point, you’re a year in. They’ve got you. You feel stuck.

Candidly, this is something I never had a problem with, as I was always so far below the curve academicly, I never knew what it was like to be on the other side, and work to stay there.

When will the law schools get it? When will they realize that free money is free money. It's like a salary - requiring work to keep it is just, well, wrong. Those days are over. Money should be handed out to interested law students because they want to go to law school, period. If we begin teaching them that they have to work for the money they are being given, the only result will be a bunch of hard working lawyers, and that is so 2000.

The Times understands today's law student: In referring to the students' lack of knowledge that the scholarships are kept through competition for the required GPA based on the curve, it nails it: Students who don’t seek out this data tend to regard merit scholarship offers as a school saying “We love you.” It’s more like an invitation to a foot race, and before you get to the starting line you’d better know how fast to run and how many others are running.

Now who wants to run fast when the alternative is to have people tell you they love you?

There is a solution to the problem. The Times reports that Chicago-Kent offers students less scholarship money ($9,000) if they want it guaranteed, and more ($15,000) if they can clear the 3.25 G.P.A. hurdle.

Guess what?

Ninety percent opt for the larger and riskier sum, according to school officials.

Snookered. Yeah.

When we look back at this time, we will remember this as the generation of poor, stupid, impressionable college graduates who were "snookered" into entering the legal profession.

Jeff Lipshaw over at Legal Profession Blog, has some thoughts on the snookering:

"I have this image of one's acceptance letter carrying warning decals that make it look like my lawn mower or, at the very least, like my Starbucks cup. "CAUTION: THE BEVERAGE YOU ARE ABOUT TO DRINK IS HOT, THE SCHOOL YOU ARE ABOUT TO ATTEND HAS COMPETITIVE STUDENTS, THE LIFE YOU ARE ABOUT TO LEAD IS UNCERTAIN, AND THERE'S NO WAY OUT."

Just like a Starbucks cup.

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

Where Have All The Lawyers Gone?

The fallout from my post on a lawyer who complained that his ability to create a civil practice partly by gaining experience on criminal defendants, can be summed up as: "you're mean, thank you." The "thank you" came from the young lawyer to whom I was probably a bit unfair - splattering his email on my blog, not removing his name.

Sure, he sent it to 4,000 people, and as a lawyer, he knows that making a public statement is just that - public. But in today's world, it's all about coddling, being nice, not ruffling feathers, giving hugs, and making sure everyone's happy. The desire for mentors - real mentors who will tell it like it is - is almost gone. The 50 or so comments convinced me of this: Few of today's young lawyers want mentors, we are more concerned about whether someone is being "mean" then whether they are being honest, although there are still some young lawyers who don't mind being told they are not as cute as everyone on their listserv is telling them.

Here's a sampling of what lawyers, yes, lawyers, had to say:

Are you just looking for content for your blog?

...unfortunately, many people on the list spent far more time taking this lawyer to task for seeking advice than actually trying to help him out.

You posted a highly-critical and demeaning attack on another lawyer, and you didn't bother to contact that lawyer to get his perspective. That's not fair. In fact, it's just plain wrong.

I think you have done the profession a disservice in this post.

And from the lawyer who was the subject of the post?

Brian, shg, Carolyn, and everyone else, I will take your advice. It is not lost on deaf ears. ...I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I wanted you all to understand that I am listening instead of tuning you out. My defensiveness was instinctual, but it's not the end all be all of my personality. I will learn, because I must. I'm not a fan of hard knocks, but sometimes they are necessary.

I became a lawyer to be an advocate. When I graduated, I started advocating. After a few years of learning, I thought I'd try to earn a living from what I learned, all the while continuing to learn. The internet was nothing. It was all about the yellow pages. We were told that to get business you had to meet people, do a good job, and build a reputation. Some decided to avoid all that by renting billboards, buying the back cover of the yellow pages, sending mailers, and anything else that would yell "HIRE ME." And hire me they did. Most prospective clients are looking for a lawyer, any lawyer. The key for me was to be a lawyer for those clients looking for a certain type of lawyer. It was hard. I didn't have 12 people in my lobby waiting to write me $500 checks. I was looking for that one client a week.

Today the path is graduation, twitter account, Facebook fan page, buy iPad, buy newer iPad, stand in line for yet newer iPad, hire SEO guy to get you to the first page of Google, and fake it 'till you make it. The marketers will say that they will only market for competent lawyers, but the truth is that with few exceptions, most of them will market for anyone with a dollar. And it's not confined to young lawyers. BigLaw is so desperate to market themselves that they'll talk to a 6-month no-longer-practicing-lawyer because he claims to be able to teach them how to be rainmakers by using social media. He never made rain as a lawyer, but no one seems to care. It's all about the sales job, right, counsel? This is why the number one group of people scammed by these Nigerian emails - are lawyers. We're so desperate for money we'll listen to anyone who mentions the word.

The rush to the marketing table is like the running of the bulls. Run fast, or die, they say.



I don't run very fast, and I don't see any bulls behind me. I've taken some great advice over the years, and kept my eye on the goal of building a practice of which I could be proud, regardless of what others think.

Today, though, building a practice is nothing more than collecting dollars. Sure, there are those who want to become respected advocates of the Bar. But so many are merely running in the direction of anyone who will tell them how to game the internet and nowhere else. When I tell young lawyers to join their local Rotary, sponsor charity events, go out and meet people, I can hear the "yeah, sure, how will that affect my internet presence?"

Where have all the lawyers gone? Where are the new, up and coming lawyers that laugh at the social media consultants, that envision a practice of clients and cases and research and advocacy, respect of their peers, authorship of articles on key legal issues, speaking engagements at real legal conferences? Where have all the lawyers gone who are less interested in collecting those clients looking for lawyers on the internet, and more interested in collecting clients looking for good lawyers through referrals? Are they on listservs speaking their mind about the state of the profession, or are they more concerned about whether some other lawyer may call them a "meanie?"

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 Future Of The Legal Profession: How To Ethically Lie About Your Fake Office

So much discussion about the future of the legal profession is running around the internet these days that you may begin to think that the people talking about it actually know what they are talking about. Look a bit closer and you will see that the so called "future" is being described by those who are tired of practicing, addicted to tech, have no real substantive practice to speak of, and generally make up things to bolster their self-fulfilling prophecies. In essence, those that talk about the future of the legal profession these days are mainly spewing their vision of the profession. A vision that many "real" lawyers don't share.

One vision I do share with these "future of the legal profession" idiots, is that the future includes more acceptable lying. You know, pretending you have a certain amount of experience, or credentials, or yes, even a certain type of office.

Which brings me to the topic at hand.

Why do some lawyers put photos of their office building on their website? I don't have a picture of my office building on my website. Maybe I should. Maybe one day I will. But when I do, it will be a picture of the office building where I have an office, with a desk, and people working for me and with me. It will not be a picture of the building in which some timeshare company owns a floor and of the address I own for $100 a month.

Which leads me to the answer to my own question. There are lawyers who put a picture of the building in which their "office" is located in order to create an impression that they in fact, have an office there. When in fact, I, as well as many other lawyers know (not potential clients though) that in each city there are Class A office buildings that have a floor rented by a "Regus" type company that in turn, provides fee-for-service office solutions for lawyers and other businesses.

A lawyer can have merely the address to receive mail, or someone answering a dedicated phone line, or conference room time, office time, and yes, lawyers can actually rent offices and work there like in any other place. But for the most part, in this "future of the legal profession," lawyers buy the address and pretend (lie) that this is actually where they practice.



Cool, huh?

Welcome to the future.

.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 Future Of Law: Better, Faster, Cheaper - Pick Which One You Want

If you practice law, go to law school, or just know that lawyers exist, I trust by now you've read the story of Joseph Rakofsky's representation in a murder case.

New details have surfaced.

He solicited himself for the case. If you don't know, lawyers can advertise under stringent rules, but are not permitted to solicit. They do, every day, but it's a violation of the ethics rules.

Rakofsky also quoted a fee 50-75% less of what the client was hearing from other lawyers. Nothing unethical about that, unless you are quoting the fee just to get the case, and refrain from telling the client that a. you've never handled a murder case, and b. you've never tried a case.

This is how some inexperienced lawyers get cases today - cut price and say as little as possible about your lack of experience.

Take for example one of the cornerstones of today's marketing lawyer - if you've only been out a few years, don't put your graduation date from law school or college on your website. (Stop laughing, internet marketers - yeah, we all know it's one of your "secrets.")

Sunday night a group of people not asked to speak at the ABA Tech Show in Chicago this week, had their own pre-tech show conference - Ignite Law. This conference selected 12 people, some practicing lawyers, to discuss the future of law - each speaker getting 6 minutes.

Of course, how a lawyer parading as an experienced criminal defense lawyer used tech and social media to create a false image of his experience and qualifications, was discussed profusely.

Actually, no it wasn't.

The marketers and tech types are still on an embargo on that topic. Not a word.

All the speakers did mention the New York Times piece by exonerated convict John Thompson that went viral yesterday where he wonders if the future of law will bring prosecutors to justice.

Actually, none of them mentioned that, and no one at tech show will mention that this week. As some hysterical attendee said last year "it's tech show, tech show, it's about tech, tech tech tech," etc...

If you're wondering what the future of law holds for all of us according to the speakers at Ignite Law:

As the ABA Journal summed it up:

Technology will push bar regulators to ease jurisdictional restrictions. More than 50 percent of clients will rely on consumer review websites like Yelp to find a lawyer. And iPads and other smart tablets will be as ubiquitous in firms and courtrooms as microwave ovens are in homes.

Lawyer Jay Shepherd is so certain the billable hour will be dead in 8 years that he announced to the sold-out crowd he is closing his practice to focus on a new venture, PREFIX, which teaches lawyers how to value and price knowledge and judgment.

Lawyer Jim Calloway probably assured himself he wont be invited back when he called for a return to old-school communication including handwritten thank-you notes and smartphone-free face time as two of the best ways to build client trust in the future.

His catchphrase 'What Would Grandma Do?' drew laughs.

Ha ha h......heh..h...

I wasn't invited to speak at Ignite Law, mainly because I didn't submit an audition package and beg people on twitter to vote for me, but if I did, and was selected, I would have said something like this:

The future of law will require lawyers to keep confidences of clients. It will require that lawyers understand legal issues and figure out ways to resolve client problems. There will be so many lawyers in the profession for the sole purpose of collecting clients through internet marketing, that it will be the rare lawyer who agrees to meet in a room with a client where the only technology is a glass to hold some water, a pen, some paper, and a professional interested in a face to face opportunity to discuss an important issue with a person needing legal services.

Witnesses will be called into courtrooms to testify about what your clients did, and you will be required to understand how to question them without the use of something with an on/off switch. You will also be required to explain your legal position through an analysis of the case law you obtained virtually or via the fax machine connected to the radio in your wireless car.

Because everyone will have a tablet-type device and ability to video conference with people through their sunglasses, the successful lawyer will be the one who gains a reputation for understanding how the law applies to a particular client's issue, and who has the ability to advocate a position through the connection of facts to current law.

I don't know what the future of the legal profession will entail, as I'm just a practitioner, not a palm reader. Like anything else, there will be a movement towards better, faster, cheaper.

Tech and social media marketing can definitely help you be two of those things.

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

Unethical Marketing Stings Two Criminal Defense Lawyers

But I am against this type of public humiliation, or “cyberbullying” as someone has termed it.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Jamison Koehler, January 31, 2010, on his blog.

Greenfield writes that it has been painful for him to “scan the internet and see websites of attorneys claiming to be the best in their field when no one has ever heard of them”: “Apparently, these attorneys put their resources into paying search engines so that their websites pop up first rather than into representing their clients or perfecting their skills as an attorney. This is a sad commentary on the legal profession.”

Again, maybe so. I have complained myself about the endless spam comments I receive on this blog and the endless phone calls from hucksters trying to sign me up for a search engine optimization program.

At the same time, I think this trend is inevitable. Policing the blawgosphere and calling out specific lawyers on what are still debatable ethical issues seems to me, as I wrote on Greenfield’s site, paternalistic and futile.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Jamison Koehler, January 31, 2010, on his blog.

Yes, frequent readers of this blog will notice that with just a few minutes on Google, I've found some not-so-true facts (lies) about some of the lawyers trolling the internet looking to get paid to tell you how to be rich and successful. I've also written about the vast number of lawyers (not only clients) out there that know nothing about this. They happily read the qualifications of the marketing expert, or lawyer, some of which are true, and prepare to be taught to make money as a lawyer, or be represented.

The responses are all the same: from "Wow, I didn't know that, thanks for telling me," to "who cares?" and as always, from fellow criminal defense lawyer Jamison Koehler, "we're smart enough to figure this out."

Take for example his response to a post about "real lawyers"

I am no big fan of all the hucksters out there trying to sell products or services we don’t need. But we are adults. We are savvy. We can figure out for ourselves what works and what doesn’t.

Yes, we're all smart enough, even the ones who aren't smart enough.

But oh how things change...

I have always been somewhat suspicious of reports in the criminal law blogosphere (author's note: by Brian Tannebaum, Scott Greenfield, and Mark Bennett, but I won't mention them specifically because they may call me out for hypocrisy), about lawyers who misrepresent their credentials or who otherwise fail to meet the needs of their clients. Maybe I am naïve (author's note: "maybe?"), but I have questioned how frequently this actually occurs (author's note: hourly). And just as anything I might say could be viewed as suspect (author's note: no, never), I have been struck by the sanctimonious and self-serving nature of these complaints (author's note: it is not sanctimonious and self-serving to call out the liars in our profession, it is sanctimonious and self-serving to defend them against lawyers who are trying to rid them from the profession), particularly when coming from a less experienced lawyer such as myself. Implicit in every such complaint is the suggestion that the blogger doing the complaining would never commit such a sin himself.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Jamison Koehler, on his blog, 2 days ago.

Koehler's post comes from his learning that (Santa Claus doesn't exist) a fellow criminal defense lawyer totally lied about his background, got retained on a murder case, and had never before tried a case, despite advertising on his website that he “specializes” in criminal law.

Damn, wonder (which marketer) advised him to do that? "No one will ever find out, I can hear them telling the young lawyer.

Scott Greenfield, one of the bloggers Koehler has criticized in the past for writing about the unethical, picks up the story with what we know is the mantra of the marketers:

Don't sweat the details. Don' be afraid to make yourself appear to be something, many things, you're not. And don't ever turn away a client, no matter what the case or what your qualifications to handle the case. It's all about making money, and anything a young lawyer has to do to make money is fair game. That's how things work in the law these days.

In the best summary of the sewer that is the internet for legal marketing today, Greenfield concludes:

Many, from the social media gurus to the legal marketers to the young lawyers whining about their need for money, willingly embrace the idea that the internet is free from the constraints of truth and ethics that apply in the real world, that it's a truth free zone. If the internet can make you, it can break you as well.

Yep.

So I'm sorry Jamison, that it took this for you to realize that we here who write about this often, are not just making shit up.

It's real, it's pervasive, and I'm happy to see one of our own go down while we welcome another to the "policing" blawgosophere.

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