PDA

View Full Version : Finding a lawyer



MDS
06-06-2012, 10:04 PM
So a lot of discussion around here involves having a good lawyer to help you navigate the often complex aftermath of various situations involving guns and/or cops and/or bad guys. I've recently decided that the lawyers I've used in the past are, umm, not the ones I'd like to use in the future. I plan on asking my friends and acquaintances for recommendations, of course, but I wonder if there are other/better ways to get pointers to good lawyers. I'm thinking some questions or talking points might be useful, too? That way if I talk to three different lawyers, I have some apples-to-apples objective reasons to choose one over the others. Anyway, I'm just in the process of starting to figure this out.

Thoughts?

Ray Keith
06-06-2012, 11:09 PM
Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns. Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise. Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious. If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.

The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want. Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there. Appointed lawyers don't all suck.

Once you hire someone, listen to them. If you want to represent yourself but don't argue with the advice you have paid for. References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.

# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask. The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another. Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed. How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.

My .02, FWIW

nwhpfan
06-07-2012, 03:39 AM
I would suggest the same lawyers the police unions hire to represent officers when they use deadly force.

Wayne Dobbs
06-07-2012, 07:42 AM
Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities. Also remember the adage for trial lawyers: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, attack the other side's witnesses"

DanH
06-07-2012, 07:45 AM
Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities. Also remember the adage for trial lawyers: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, attack the other side's witnesses"

I thought that last part was "pound the table" :p

TR675
06-07-2012, 08:58 AM
Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns. Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise. Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious. If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.

The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want. Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there. Appointed lawyers don't all suck.

Once you hire someone, listen to them. If you want to represent yourself but don't argue with the advice you have paid for. References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.

# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask. The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another. Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed. How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.

My .02, FWIW

This is excellent advice.

A Martindale Hubbell AV rating and board certification in criminal law are good indicators that the prospective attorney is squared away.

I would personally hire an attorney who is both well-respected and politically connected. You will need to do some research to find that person or persons in your area. A good indicator of political connections is if the attorney is actively involved in the local bar association. Another good source for that information is a civil attorney who is active in the local bar.

Josh Runkle
06-07-2012, 09:12 AM
I would suggest the same lawyers the police unions hire to represent officers when they use deadly force.

I don't know if I would suggest that at all. The laws governing a private citizen shooting and an officer shooting are vastly different. There's usually a tiny bit more goodwill assumed of the officer at face value, but officer shooting can be much more closely scrutinized than civilian shootings, especially when it comes to which tactics were used and if those were appropriate. Often, most states have "use of force" regulations that regulate what tactics can and cannot be used in certain situations. These can be based on a study from 1950 of finely and poorly trained officers, based on "what they would do in a similar incident."

For example: A very, very large, crazy unarmed man punching people as hard as possible, knocking people down with a single punch...For an officer he might be required to have first attempted to use a baton or cs or something silly before he can use a taser, which he might be required to try using before he uses his firearm. A civilian, on the other hand, might actually recognize that deadly scenario for what it is: deadly. He might go straight to his firearm, to prevent himself from being knocked out or killed by that first punch. What if, in the aftermath, the civilian was discovered to also have a taser on him?

Well, (obviously laws are different in every state) assuming he didn't start it, couldn't get away, wasn't at fault, the assaulter was in the act of committing a felony, etc... He might be completely justified in accurately reading the scenario, and making a last-ditch effort to save himself and go straight to his gun to end a fight.

The civilian might go free in this scenario, whereas an officer might not, assuming he hadn't first attempted a more "appropriate" (for him) "use of force" response.

I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers, unless that person has a large amount of OTHER trial experience, etc. It would be bad for you if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. He'd be over-confident and under-prepared.

I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two. If that's the case and he's good to go, then it doesn't matter who else he defends.

NickA
06-07-2012, 09:25 AM
Anyone have experience or know more about the ACLDN-
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

Lots of big names associated with it but I haven't heard much.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 09:27 AM
Anyone have experience or know more about the ACLDN-
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

Lots of big names associated with it but I haven't heard much.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I'm a member and the guy for Connecticut.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 09:34 AM
I don't know if I would suggest that at all. The laws governing a private citizen shooting and an officer shooting are vastly different. There's usually a tiny bit more goodwill assumed of the officer at face value, but officer shooting can be much more closely scrutinized than civilian shootings, especially when it comes to which tactics were used and if those were appropriate. Often, most states have "use of force" regulations that regulate what tactics can and cannot be used in certain situations. These can be based on a study from 1950 of finely and poorly trained officers, based on "what they would do in a similar incident."

For example: A very, very large, crazy unarmed man punching people as hard as possible, knocking people down with a single punch...For an officer he might be required to have first attempted to use a baton or cs or something silly before he can use a taser, which he might be required to try using before he uses his firearm. A civilian, on the other hand, might actually recognize that deadly scenario for what it is: deadly. He might go straight to his firearm, to prevent himself from being knocked out or killed by that first punch. What if, in the aftermath, the civilian was discovered to also have a taser on him?

Well, (obviously laws are different in every state) assuming he didn't start it, couldn't get away, wasn't at fault, the assaulter was in the act of committing a felony, etc... He might be completely justified in accurately reading the scenario, and making a last-ditch effort to save himself and go straight to his gun to end a fight.

The civilian might go free in this scenario, whereas an officer might not, assuming he hadn't first attempted a more "appropriate" (for him) "use of force" response.

I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers, unless that person has a large amount of OTHER trial experience, etc. It would be bad for you if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. He'd be over-confident and under-prepared.

I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two. If that's the case and he's good to go, then it doesn't matter who else he defends.

No.

The laws are not different, the application is.

A police officer is a government agent, therefore his use of force is dictated by the subjective-objective standard using the A-O-I factors AND the 14th amendment...as well as his commission from the state to get involved with other people's stuff.

His use of force guidelines operate under the same ones your's do - with the additional restrictions of Graham v. Connor/Garner v. TN as well as departmental guidelines.

A cop may have more opportunity to use force, but is under more restrictions that the normal person for what options to take.


Private people have only one set of legal restrictions - the statute and it's interpretations in caselaw: effectively, the subjective-objective standard using the A-O-I factors. That's it.

You can retreat if you are able to, a cop usually is obligated not to.
You don't have to follow constitutional guidelines for the use of force or contact with people. He does.
You don't have municipal, liability driven policies to follow. Cops do.

Understand your use of force laws, absolutely stone cold...and you will find you have more freedom that you believed you did.

As to using the same lawyers the cops use...

They use the criminal defense bar in your local area.

Same as the rest of the world does.

LOKNLOD
06-07-2012, 09:35 AM
This is a good question... The universal cry seems to be "have a lawyer already!" but honestly I have no idea how to find or best choose a lawyer. The highest level of interaction I've ever had with a lawyer was pistol whipping one with a simgun at ECQC. I've got the card for the guy that participated in my required permit class, but I've also heard others in the community say negative things about him.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 09:35 AM
Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns. Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise. Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious. If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.

The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want. Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there. Appointed lawyers don't all suck.

Once you hire someone, listen to them. If you want to represent yourself but don't argue with the advice you have paid for. References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.

# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask. The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another. Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed. How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.

My .02, FWIW

YES!!!

vcdgrips
06-07-2012, 09:36 AM
I am not your lawyer, I am not giving you legal advice.

If I was looking for a good criminal def atty, I would ask LEOs I knew who they would hire for themselves ( both for on and off duty conduct) and their families. Sometimes, this is not the same lawyer.

Many of the best defense attys were prosecutors, judges or public defenders before they went into private practice. This can be key because these attys can have a level of familiarity and access with judges and former colleagues that many other lawyers simply do not have.

Many of the best criminal defense attys are very parochial in their practice i.e. do their best work in certain counties of a metropolitan area as opposed to others, do their best work at a certain level, i.e. municipal DUI v. state violent crime v.federal narcotics etc. The guy in my town I would hire if I shot someone in a late night encounter is not the same atty I would hire if I got sucked into a mortgage fraud case.

In the civil context, I would be very inquisitive as to how many "first chair" jury trials a lawyer has under their belt. Many civil law partners in law firms around a town are making really good money telling clients what a court or judge or jury is going to do in a particular case yet have never picked a jury in their legal lives.

Like anything else, quality costs. Cheapest is rarely best.

IMHO Castle Doctrine laws notwithstanding, if you shoot someone, you have likely bought yourself a 6-7 figure lawsuit, civil, criminal or both.

LittleLebowski
06-07-2012, 09:37 AM
I can speak from experience that finding a politically liked minded lawyer who is a shooter, pays off both financially and with peace of mind. My lawyer trains with the big names (Defoor, Vickers, trying to make it to one of Todd's classes and Failure2stop), is libertarian/conservative, and has spoken to me at length about what to do in case I'm involved in a defensive shooting (STFU, call him ASAP). He also carries and is licensed to practice in DC, MD, and VA.

NickA
06-07-2012, 09:38 AM
I'm a member and the guy for Connecticut.

Add one more big name to the list :) Seems like a good solution for someone like me who's not hooked into the local legal scene.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 09:55 AM
Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities. Also remember the adage for trial lawyers: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, attack the other side's witnesses"

Not to be crude...but that's like saying to a guy in college "Don't have sex with a woman who likes to go out, have a good time and enjoys hooking up. Only have sex with women who don't party, never drink alcohol, don't do drugs and are in college to get a degree to better themselves!"

In theory that's nice...in practice, it is really, really hard to put into effect, because the available women are the ones who like hooking up, and the other type...simply aren't likely to be out and about in the circumstances most college guys are living in.

I've been an attorney for 6 years. I have a lot of criminal law experience...I've defended 1 innocent guy in all that time.

Know why? Innocent people generally do not run afoul of the police.

Defends innocent people...I love it. So, the lawyer you want to defend you in a serious, life threatening legal fight is someone who's never had to handle a truly ugly, complicated matter, that needs every bit of skill and attention possible to generate a good result?

I see. By this logic, Todd is not the guy you want to learn how to shoot from because he actually puts ammo downrange under time and accuracy pressure as well.

Yes. A justification defense is different from a normal defense of "prove it"...but it's still a defense in a criminal matter.

If having an experienced attorney working for you in your case is important, then the whole "Get a guy used to defending innocent people!" idea is not one you want to follow.

You don't get experience defending innocent people because truly innocent people are filtered out of the criminal system before lawyers encounter them in almost all cases.

Ray Keith
06-07-2012, 10:02 AM
Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people.

This is a fruitless and meaningless pursuit in my opinion. It also seems to suggest something else that isn't stated, but I'll not go there.

Wayne Dobbs
06-07-2012, 11:17 AM
Not to be crude...but that's like saying to a guy in college "Don't have sex with a woman who likes to go out, have a good time and enjoys hooking up. Only have sex with women who don't party, never drink alcohol, don't do drugs and are in college to get a degree to better themselves!"

In theory that's nice...in practice, it is really, really hard to put into effect, because the available women are the ones who like hooking up, and the other type...simply aren't likely to be out and about in the circumstances most college guys are living in.

I've been an attorney for 6 years. I have a lot of criminal law experience...I've defended 1 innocent guy in all that time.

Know why? Innocent people generally do not run afoul of the police.

Defends innocent people...I love it. So, the lawyer you want to defend you in a serious, life threatening legal fight is someone who's never had to handle a truly ugly, complicated matter, that needs every bit of skill and attention possible to generate a good result?

I see. By this logic, Todd is not the guy you want to learn how to shoot from because he actually puts ammo downrange under time and accuracy pressure as well.

Yes. A justification defense is different from a normal defense of "prove it"...but it's still a defense in a criminal matter.

If having an experienced attorney working for you in your case is important, then the whole "Get a guy used to defending innocent people!" idea is not one you want to follow.

You don't get experience defending innocent people because truly innocent people are filtered out of the criminal system before lawyers encounter them in almost all cases.



Dude!

I know the down and dirty realities of the criminal justice system since I played in it for 25 plus years, feeding folks into it as fast as my handcuffs and pen/computer could work! I know that the overwhelming majority of the suspects are guilty of their crimes and how defense counsel works their side of the courtroom. It took a while for me to realize how that process was vitally important and after that, I actually LIKED most defense counsel, at least the truly professional ones. It was also apparent to me how the system had bad failings, especially the eyewitness ID/testimony side and especially cross-racial identification issues. Those did lead to innocent folks going to prison and we have nearly 20 way after the fact exonerations in Dallas County alone of defendants who were ultimately cleared and released. Some of them had spent upwards of 25 years in prison on crimes they didn't commit. Obviously, none of them were solid citizens, which is what brought focus on them in the first place, but the justice system had no justice for them.

We need counsel to defend us from the consequences of poor investigations, biased investigations, agenda driven prosecutors and sometimes, ourselves! We need the best guys available to do that and it would be nice to have one that can include in his approach the notion that this case is significantly different than the standard turd actions that he/she is used to handling. If I offended you by my suggestions, I apologize.

TR675
06-07-2012, 11:17 AM
The highest level of interaction I've ever had with a lawyer was pistol whipping one with a simgun at ECQC.

And that isn't good for attorney/client relations, let me tell you.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 11:30 AM
We need counsel to defend us from the consequences of poor investigations, biased investigations, agenda driven prosecutors and sometimes, ourselves! We need the best guys available to do that and it would be nice to have one that can include in his approach the notion that this case is significantly different than the standard turd actions that he/she is
used to handling.

If I offended you by my suggestions, I apologize.

I get that part, and I agree with you.

That's a great way to phrase it, a lot better than "a guy who can defend innocent clients".

I can usually tell when someone's not a usual suspect by:

1) Any reference to "My cousin" is accompanied by a description of how he/she is in fact your cousin.
2) The client is able to tell me a coherent story
3) They can explain why they were at a particular place at a particular time
4) A DD214 indicating an honorable discharge
5) employment.
6) Lack of a criminal record, probation officer or other "paper".

When those things are present, I react accordingly.

When they aren't...the same.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 11:31 AM
And that isn't good for attorney/client relations, let me tell you.

I think it's fine when you pistolwhip clients...:confused:

Isn't it?

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2012, 12:49 PM
If by "pistol whip" you mean "bill," then yes, it is.

And Advocates we shall be...For thee, oh client, for thee.
Admission to the bar hath descended forth from G0D's hand, that I may swiftly type out your demand.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with obtuse and hard to understand words shall it ever be.

In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti.

I need a smoke, and a Beretta 92.

Shellback
06-07-2012, 01:53 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QTA4z9i9CAQ/TGDHZIGwwNI/AAAAAAAACLY/iB5suBlwShY/s1600/boondocksaints1.jpg

MDS
06-07-2012, 02:13 PM
Awesome, thanks for the advice. I hope I don't lose too much meaning, or violate anyone's copyright, by chopping up and reposting the tidbits that most jump out at me in a single post, vaguely grouped in sort-of related topics:




Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns.
# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask.
In the civil context, I would be very inquisitive as to how many "first chair" jury trials a lawyer has under their belt.
Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed.


I can speak from experience that finding a politically liked minded lawyer who is a shooter, pays off both financially and with peace of mind.
Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. [As further explained. -mds]
Many of the best criminal defense attys are very parochial in their practice


If I was looking for a good criminal def atty, I would ask LEOs I knew who they would hire for themselves ( both for on and off duty conduct) and their families. Sometimes, this is not the same lawyer.
The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities.
I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two.


A Martindale Hubbell AV rating and board certification in criminal law are good indicators that the prospective attorney is squared away.
The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want.
Many of the best defense attys were prosecutors, judges or public defenders before they went into private practice.
I would personally hire an attorney who is both well-respected and politically connected. (actively involved in the local bar association - ask a civil attorney who is active in the local bar.)
References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.


Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise.
How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.
The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another.


Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious.
If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.


Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there.
Like anything else, quality costs. Cheapest is rarely best.
Appointed lawyers don't all suck.


http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

rsa-otc
06-07-2012, 02:30 PM
One of the important traits I would look for is a competent lawyer who is extremely familiar with firearms. Someone like Manny Kapelsohn or our own Mitchell. I always thought it would be a huge asset should the plaintiff attorney or prosecutor try to misrepresent a fact and the defendants attorney would instinctively know how to immediately counter that without needing to have an expert witness whisper in their ear. Firearms stuff like, hollow points, too many rounds on our persons, too powerful a gun, warning shots etc. If you can find one in your area that is.

MDS
06-07-2012, 02:34 PM
IMHO Castle Doctrine laws notwithstanding, if you shoot someone, you have likely bought yourself a 6-7 figure lawsuit, civil, criminal or both.

Holy dual-wielded suppressed Mk23's smoking in the rain! So maybe it would be advantageous to find a lawyer with a really memorable face. That way, when the BG asks you for the $50 in your wallet, you can imagine the lawyer's face hovering over the BG, with a big grin hoping you pull the trigger so he can get that new Aston Martin. Suddenly, losing $50 and a little dignity doesn't seem so bad...

Seriously, my mindset is that I'll shoot someone if I can't see any other way of stopping a deadly threat. God forbid, should that ever happen, I can't imagine it wouldn't be an open-and-shut case. So I don't plan on worrying too much about the aftermath, other than to have a good lawyer "on speed dial." In my mind, choosing a lawyer for the possibility of that aftermath is only sensible. April 13 is not the right time to open the Yellow Pages to find a tax attorney...

EMC
06-07-2012, 03:24 PM
In Utah there is only one answer to this question and he's authored several books on gun laws in our state. I keep his number handy.

Coyotesfan97
06-07-2012, 04:56 PM
I would suggest the same lawyers the police unions hire to represent officers when they use deadly force.

I'm in this late but if you can find the list they hire thats a great start for you to look at them. My association rotates through a very strong list of criminal defense attorneys for OIS incidents. I got one at random for my incident and was very impressed upon meeting him and his guidance that night. The best part was afterwards talking to one of my friends who had used him for both a duty incident and a private legal matter and he was immediately positive telling me I was being represented by a true professional who he planned to call if he needed legal representation again.

The only caveat I would add is that it can depend on the organization. At one point the other fraternal organization was bad mouthing my association because (gasp) we we were hiring the same people who defended people we arrested. They were using one firm exclusively while we were using the best attorneys from different firms. IIRC the had agreed not to represent people who had been arrested by my agency.

Some of the attorneys on our list are used to high profile cases and have won cases the conventional wisdom was they would lose. One was a controversial OIS that had three Count Attorneys including the Bureau Chief prosecuting the Officer. The Officer was found not guilty with his legal fees paid for by the association.

If LL's attorney had a bar license in AZ I'd be PMing him for the name.