Point & Glick

I heard about the Rakof­sky débâ­cle long after it occurred, thanks to my de-facto hia­tus from the inter­webs. It came up when many blawgers I respect and fol­low were named as defen­dants in a com­plaint that has been dubbed by Scott Green­field as Rakof­sky v. Inter­net.

At first I was con­tent lim­it­ing my com­men­tary (if snarky, not-particularly-well-turned phrases count as com­men­tary) to twit­ter. Then I moved to com­ment­ing on blawg posts dis­cussing it, but that wasn’t cut­ting it.

You see, I’m feel­ing left out.

Plus, Mir­riam Sed­diq just posted a ques­tion on her blog ask­ing if young lawyers need to be taught not to take mur­der cases as their first trial.

Do you young lawyers really not know that fresh out of law school, with a year of prac­tice under your belt that your very first trial should not be one where one per­son is accused of killing another?

My answer is that even not-yet-lawyers know this. Before Rakof­sky, I thought that the only peo­ple who didn’t know this were tele­vi­sion show executives.

For any­one who thinks that Rakof­sky should stand for any fail­ing of the next gen­er­a­tion of lawyers, be it a fail­ure of law schools, a break­down of legal ethics, or an increase in marketing’s hold on new lawyers, I want to tell you that Rakof­sky is special.

Unique.

Those fail­ings I just men­tioned may exist; they may be per­va­sive. But Rakof­sky and his attor­ney exist in their own com­pletely sur­real lit­tle world.

By the way, for more on Rakof­sky, view Mark w. Bennett’s excel­lent com­pendium of blog posts: http://​blog​.ben​net​tand​ben​nett​.com/​2​0​1​1​/​0​5​/​c​o​m​p​e​n​d​i​u​m​-​o​f​-​r​a​k​o​f​s​k​y​-​v​-​i​n​t​e​r​n​e​t​-​b​l​o​g​-​p​o​s​t​s​.​h​tml