Archive for the ‘The Business of Law’ Category

Almost nine years ago, I embarked on an adventure. Starting my own law practice straight out of law school, knowing very little substantive law, knowing almost nothing about running a business, armed only with good credit and “fire in the belly,” it has been quite a ride. This was 2002, before most people had heard the word “blog,” when “dot-com” was still a dirty word, when the country was still clawing its way out of the post-9/11 recession, and when Democrats still held a few statewide offices in Texas.

A lot has changed since then. Technology has certainly advanced, but going solo is no longer quite the crazy move it once was. With the bad economy and the rather ridiculous surplus of new lawyers entering the stage every year, it’s getting awful crowded in my sky (h/t Malcolm Reynolds).

Quite frankly, the thrill of the law is not what it once was. The thrill of blogging about the law, or tweeting about it, is still there, but my heart and my passion seems to have moved on. So I’ve decided to leave the practice of law, at least for a while.

This is, of course, not the end for me and law. I’m keeping this website, and this blog. In fact, I intend to keep writing and hopefully entertaining my reader(s), but I have not had the particular drive to write informative, search-engine-optimized posts about collaborative law. I prefer to write about animal welfare, dogs, and my own peculiar theories on the business of law. Writing about my passions, and not writing the interesting-but-not-at-all controversial blog posts common to many law blogs, is what inspires me, so I look forward to feeling perhaps less constrained by industry convention. I was recently mentioned by a complete stranger as one of the few Austin lawyers making good use of social media for my practice. I enjoy the social media, but not so much the practice. It’s time for a new adventure.

I hope, in making this confession, that I do not lose the trust or respect of my reader(s). I have met many amazing people through my work over the past nine years, and none of you have heard the last of me.

I may a little late to the party commenting on Joseph Rakofsky, since it’s been two weeks since the story first broke in legal circles.  The story is worth noting, though, since I suspect it is something many lawyers who started out solo can understand–even if personal experience has not been as bitter.  To bring you up to speed, Mr. Rakofsky is a New Jersey attorney who had a murder trial in D.C. result in a mistrial for some unconventional reasons:

A Washington, D.C., judge declared a mistrial in a murder case Friday, saying he was “astonished” at the performance of the defense lawyer who confessed to jurors he’d never tried a case before.

Judge William Jackson said lawyer Joseph Rakofsky did not have a good grasp of legal procedures, citing as an example the attorney’s rambling opening statement in which he told of his inexperience, the Washington Post reports. Rakofsky graduated from Touro law school in 2009 and obtained a law license in New Jersey less than a year ago, the story says.

Rakofsky had repeated disagreements with his local D.C. counsel, causing his client, Dontrell Deaner, to become “visibly frustrated,” the Post says. On Friday, Deaner told the judge he wanted a new lawyer.

The judge declared a mistrial after reviewing a court filing in which an investigator had claimed Rakofsky fired him for refusing to carry out the lawyer’s emailed suggestion to “trick” a witness, the story says. Rakofsky’s suggestion allegedly read: “Thank you for your help. Please trick the old lady to say that she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting.”

Based on the news coverage, it does not sound like there is very much this lawyer did right:

News of the mistrial spread throughout the courthouse as observers raced into Jackson’s third-floor courtroom Friday to watch the proceedings. The judge, now obviously angry and frustrated, told Rakofsky that his performance in the trial was “below what any reasonable person would expect in a murder trial.”

“There was not a good grasp of legal procedures of what was, and was not, allowed to be admitted in trial, to the detriment of Mr. Deaner,” Jackson told Rakofsky.

Jackson said the most evident sign of Rakofsky’s inexperience came during his rambling opening statements before the jury Wednesday, which lasted more than an hour, more than 30 minutes longer than most attorneys’ openings. During his opening statements, Rakofsky repeatedly made reference to children playing “in the projects of Southeast D.C., where there was always gambling, guns and drugs.”

“There are drugs in the projects of Southeast D.C. There are guns all the time and drugs,” Rakofsky told the jury.

The prosecutor repeatedly objected over the relevance of Rakofsky’s statements. Rakofsky said the “children” were a symbol of what his client had endured growing up in that neighborhood. Jackson told Rakofsky to focus on the case, especially because none of the “children” he referred to was scheduled to testify.

Later during his statement, Rakofsky informed the jury that the case was his first trial. The revelation shocked Jackson, the judge revealed at Friday’s hearing. “I was astonished someone would represent someone in a murder case who has never tried a case before,” the judge said.

Rakofsky did not speak during Friday’s hearing.

There are quite a few issues to unpack there. First off all, it is never okay for a lawyer to try to trick someone into making an untrue statement. It’s just a bad idea.

It also doesn’t help that, after a ruling that’s sure to be a PR disaster, the lawyer went online and bragged about it.  Probably not the best idea.  It’s also possible that he was his own sockpuppet on articles and blog posts talking about his case.

Others have already chronicled and cataloged many, many examples of this guy’s unusual public persona.  Military Underdog offers a good overview.

As more details about the story came out, it became clear that this was not just a story of a young lawyer who got in over his head.  This is also a story of a lawyer who blatantly broke ethical rules and promised more than he could deliver:

Henrietta Watson stood inside the downtown Manhattan courthouse waiting for one of her grandsons to be released from jail. A young lawyer approached and asked if he could help.

Watson and her husband declined. But the couple told the lawyer about another grandson in Washington, who was charged in the fatal shooting of a Virginia man. That case interested the lawyer, who gave Watson his card and introduced himself as Joseph Rakofsky, Watson said.

Watson, 71, said she told Rakofsky that she wasn’t interested in hiring him even for the murder case because the family couldn’t afford the $25,000 to $30,000 normally charged in such cases.

But Rakofsky, 33, called her, Watson said. And again. She said he told her that he had worked on criminal cases before. And he told her that he would charge $10,000. Watson decided to “give him a chance,” she said, impressed with his tenacity and his willingness to work on her grandson’s case, especially for such a low fee. The Watsons took out a loan, paid him $7,700 and agreed to pay the rest when the trial was over.

So here we have Joseph Rakofsky, the 33 year-old lawyer with barely two years experience from a not-terribly-highly-ranked law school, making a promise that was too good to be true to someone in a vulnerable position, getting himself into deep legal waters, winding up an industry punchline, and bragging about it all.  To which I say: it could have been any one of us (lawyers, I mean).

This is my blog.  I don’t really want to talk about Joseph Rakofsky; I want to talk about me.  Mr. Rakofsky’s case got me thinking about how I got started in law.  I started out part of a three-man shop, mostly practicing criminal defense, and I can definitely say that there are some very fine ethical lines out there.  I don’t defend any of the actions described in the coverage of Mr. Rakofsky, but I can’t quite bring myself to completely condemn the guy, maybe just because I’ve seen some similar stuff.

This case brings to mind several issues that troubled me in the early days of lawyering:

1. Practicing outside of your primary geographic area;
2. Handling a case that requires a large amount of time and attention; and
3. Your very first big trial.

Hopefully I’ll make this into a series: Thoughts on Solo Lawyering.

The job market for lawyers and recent law school graduates is, how shall I say it, poo right now.  I’m not certain it is going to rise above the level of poo any time in the near future.  Sure, some New Big Thing will come along, form a bubble, and lots of lawyers will get jobs in IPO real estate Next Big Thing Law for a while, until that bubble bursts, and then, poo again.  Still, law can be a rewarding career if you’re either resourceful or lucky (or both).  Part of being resourceful is going beyond normal job postings and selling yourself, but unfortunately that also includes the scourge of unsolicited résumés.

I rather like young lawyers, with their enthusiasm, “can do” attitudes and extraordinarily flexible work schedules.  That said, I am not, have never been, and do not anticipate ever being in a position where I need to hire associates.  Okay, I actually might need some lawyers on board with me in the future, but please don’t base your plans around me.  The number has actually slowed down in the past year, but I have been the recipient of a great many unsolicited cover letters and résumés, printed on bond or linen paper and mailed, as though the internet never happened.  Jay Shepherd at Above the Law takes on this phenomenon, asking “Does anyone seriously think that I’m going take them more seriously because they used cream-colored, 100% cloth, 24-pound bond paper? I’m not.”  He offers eleven tips for would-be applicants’ cover letters, and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, here are the highlights:

1. Spell my frikkin’ name right.
2. Don’t say “Enclosed please find my current résumé.”
3. Don’t tell me how great you are.
4. Instead, tell me how great it would be for you to work here.
5. Make sure you know what I do for a living.
6. Speaking of which, mention something you learned when you Googled me.
7. I know what you did last summer.
8. Ignore well-meaning but dumb advice from your law school.
9. Don’t recite your résumé in your cover letter.
10. Tell me how you’re different.
11. Finally, write like yourself.

If you can master those items, you are well on your way to, uh, something.  Like I’ve said, I have never hired an attorney at my firm.  If I start getting some good cover letters, though, who knows?

So with all that said, to all prospective associates of the Law Office of David C. Wells out there who might have Googled this page, I am eager to be impressed.  To anyone who has applied for a job at my firm in the past, I kept all of your letters.  Really.

I notified the good people at Above the Law of my last posting, and they have forwarded it on to the internet at large. Undoubtedly this is part of my fifteen minutes.

I am always intrigued by trends in legal hiring. A new Austin law office has provided some entertainment in a new job posting via Craig’s List (h/t to the O’Brien Law Firm):

PLEASE DO NOT APPLY IF:
YOU THINK YOU DESERVE A BIG CORNER WINDOW OFFICE OVERLOOKING THE CITY.
YOU THINK YOU DESERVE $100K AS YOUR STARTING SALARY
YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LITIGATING
YOU HAVE HORRIBLE PEOPLE SKILLS OR THINK THAT SAYING HELLO CONSTITUTES A CONVERSATION
YOU MUST WEAR A SUIT EVERY DAY TO FEEL SPECIAL
YOU REQUIRE 24 HOUR SUPERVISION ON ALL TASKS ASSIGNED
YOUR IDEA OF PROPER GRAMMAR IS SPELL CHECK
YOUR IDEA OF BEING ON TIME IS GETTING THERE WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE GETTING THERE
YOU THINK YOU ARE ABOVE ANSWERING THE OFFICE PHONE
YOU THINK A PLEADING IS WHEN SOMEONE IS BEGGING THEIR DOCTOR NOT TO INJECT THEM WITH A NEEDLE

I wish them all the best in their entry into the Austin market, and in their hiring process. I also wish them all the best with a spell checker.

In case the ad gets taken down, I preserved it for posterity.

I’ll go ahead and do a little free viral marketing for the American Bar Association, in part because I probably can’t attend this particular webcast and hope someone will tell me how it is.  Next Tuesday, as part of the upliftingly-named ABA Recession Recovery Teleconference Series, they will be hosting a webcast entitled “Staying Positive in a Down Economy: Beyond the ‘Group Hug.’”

Any lawyer-related event that prominently features the term “group hug” has got to be worthy of support.

Did I mention it’s free to ABA members???