Initial post on June 3rd:  Attached at the bottom are a set of motion papers being served today in Joseph Rakofsky’s suit against 81 defendants (including me) for defamation. I have previously given my thoughts on it, as a defendant, and my defense of vade et caca in pilleum. (Updated 6/20/11 below, Rakofsky’s opposition and our Reply)

But since I am now the attorney of record for 33 out of the 81 defendants, I will no longer be providing much in the way of opinion on this blog (other than what may be in papers being filed).

The motion is to extend the time to answer for all defendants, so that we have unified scheduled for making motions and answering, and to admit Marc Randazza pro hac vice.

Attached are the following:

Moving Papers:

NoticeOfMotion

TurkewitzAffidavit

RandazzaPetition

Exhibits to motion include:

Complaint

AmendedComplaint

Washington Post story of April 1, 2011

Washington Post story of April 9, 2011

“Trick” email

RakofskyTrialTranscript

Update 1:  6/20/11 Updated Docs (Opposition and Reply):

Rakofsky Memorandum Of Law In Opposition

Turkewitz Reply Affidavit

Randazza Reply Affidavit

Update 2:  6/30/11 Updated Docs (Sur-Replies and court appearance 6/29/11)

BorzouyeSupplementalAffirmation

Turkewitz-Sur-Reply

Randazza-Sur-Reply

Update 3:  9/21 Update: The motion was heard on oral argument on September 15th and the motion to admit Randazza pro hac vice was granted. An order will follow. The court also granted Rakofsky more time to find new counsel and set down a briefing schedule for motions to dismiss. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 15: Plaintiff to obtain new counsel by this date or the corporate defendant (Rakofsky PC) is dismissed as corporations must have a lawyer. Rakofsky can proceed pro se in his individual capacity.

January 13, 2012: Due date for all pre-answer motions to dismiss or answers;

February 13: Opposition due for all motions to dismiss;

March 13: All Replies due on motions to dismiss

March 14: Return date of the motions

All other activity is stayed by the Court.

Documents: Order (Typed Version Unofficial)

Mace Yampolsky of Nevada and his law firm are two of the 81 named defendants in this defamation action that Joseph Rakofsky brought (of which I, and my firm, are two of the defendants). Yampolsky has now answered the suit, and the document is here:YanpolskyAnswer

He is represented by John H. Teschner (no website) of New York City.

Two more motions to dismiss are being served tomorrow, and will be filed shortly, in the defamation case that Joseph Rakofsky brought against 81 defendants (including me).

These new motions come on behalf of Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers Mirriam Seddiq (who blogs at Not Guilty) (See: Seddiq Motion)  and Jamison Koehler (See: Koehler Motion)

Both are represented by Albany attorney David Brickman, who filed this motion to dismiss on behalf of Philadelphia personal injury attorney Max Kennerly and the Beasly Firm the other day.

For the out-of-towners reading this, New York’s statute that governs motions to dismiss is Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211.

While my motion on behalf of 33 defendants awaits a hearing  — merely to extend the time to answer or move for all defendants in order to coordinate schedules, and admit Marc Randazza pro hac vice —  other defendants have not been standing still.

Defendant Max Kennerly of the Beasley Firm in Philadelphia (represented by David Brickman of Albany) has served his motion to dismiss. Kennerly Memorandum of Law

Others are sure to follow. And given the number of defendants, and the lack of mandatory electronic filing, I will start clearing out a filing cabinet as the tree slaughter starts.

And a note to those using New York’s electronic data base to track motions: Motions generally get served 16 days before the return date (if you want to see opposition at least 7 days before). But the moving papers need not be actually filed until five days before the motion is heard. So you will see discrepancies as to when papers are served and when they are filed.

Two weeks ago I ripped into Joseph Rakofsky, the newbie lawyer who took on a murder defense shortly after being sworn in as an attorney, and who was written about, up, down and sideways regarding his competence, ethics and marketing.

I wrote at the end of my post, “Yeah, I got more,” and I do. I could easily put up 5-6 new posts on the subject with material others have not yet addressed. This case is, after all, right in my blog’s wheelhouse.  The combination of local access to information along with strong opinions has the potential for potent blog posts. I’ve also defended a defamation case in the past, where my attitude was no different than here: GSIAH (Latin:  vade et caca in pilleum).

But I’ve elected not to write those posts. And this is why. I’m going to be local counsel for 30 of the 81 defendants. Marc Randazza will be petitioning the court for admission pro hac vice and I’ll be the local guy on the scene while he does the heavy lifting.

In writing this blog, I like to steer away from cases where I’m counsel, and I’ve written about that before. Shooting my mouth of as a defendant is one thing, but being an attorney of record is different. I’ve only written twice before about my cases on this blog. One was a day in the life series regarding a trial, and that was only posted after the trial was over, and I did it without names.  And the other was a response to a Newsday editorial on one of my cases that involves public officials.

This is one reason I don’t usually write about pending cases: Because regardless of the merits of an action, I still must speak with opposing counsel regarding routine administrative stuff. If a brief is due, or a conference scheduled, while my adversary is going to be in Disney World with her kids, she should feel comfortable calling me and telling me she needs extra time or a new court date. And that should be possible even if we are bonking heads on the merits. Because I would want the same in response. So long as each side extends those routine professional courtesies, things generally work smoothly without detriment to anyone’s rights. When one side refuses professional courtesies, things can quickly go off the rails. The client must come first. As it always has been around these parts.

So while I may share information about what is going on in the case, it likely won’t be accompanied by too much in the way of opinions. For me, writing about my adversary on this blog while I am counsel simply wouldn’t pass the smell test. That decision is my own. The mileage of other law bloggers may vary.