Justice Shlomo Hagler
Joseph Rakofsky and his law firm, Rakofsky Law Firm, P.C., sued Washington Post, the American Bar Association, Reuters, and numerous "bloggers" on the internet claiming they had mischaracterized Rakofsky’s email request to a certified investigator as to "trick" a witness in the underlying murder trial where he was retained as defense counsel, and that defendants incorrectly reported that the presiding trial judge declared a mistrial due to Rakofsky’s competence or inexperience. The court found that the articles, reports and comments were substantially and contextually accurate, reasoning that while the precise words were not exactly identical, they were similar enough to convey a fair report. Even though the articles, reports and comments did not portray Rakofsky in a positive light, and Rakofsky may wish to disavow or interpret them in a different way, defendants were permitted to publicly disseminate them as a report of a judicial proceeding. The reported statements that Rakofsky was allegedly not competent, inexperienced, and unethical were operative words which could give rise to defamation, except it was privileged under Civil Rights Law §74. Further the court found that the on-line commentary and posts of legal blogs were non-actionable opinions.
