How do you evaluate your lawyer?

[Alfa]

When considering whether a lawyer is good or not, what qualities would you review?
Off course it is important if the lawyer has had many successes/ won many trials.
But further than that, what aspects are important when evaluating or choosing a lawyer or law firm?

What a qualities should a good lawyer or law firm have?
What should good lawyer or law firm not have?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very good question to ask. Very useful information when one's life is on the line...

[old hippie 56]

Swim always make a habit of using former prosecuting attorneys.
1-They know the workings of the area court system.
2-Most of the time, they are still members of "good old boys" group.
and
3-They have access to a knowledge base that other lawyers don't.
As for faults, never trust a lawyer wearing flashy gold, or wears both belt and suspenders.(don't laugh, think about it)

[Nagognog2]

Best I've found was an attorney for Mafia hitmen. He'd spent time in jail for refusing to divulge sources of information. And he had an attitude like a flame-thrower. He scared the shit out of judges and prosecutors alike. And he always won the case.

We worked together on a murder case in Canada - pro bono. He went on to fight the charges against the Native people who buried Plymouth Rock one Thanksgiving Day and were charged with everything from disorderly conduct to rioting. Also pro bono.

No fake red leather chairs in his office, which was a cluttered mess. Political conscious. And Mafia leg-breakers on retainer. Highly recommended.

[Alfa]

Could you translate that answers to my questions?

[Nagognog2]

Simple: A dedication to the LAW no matter what it does to their career.

[Bikelbees]

To follow on from Alfa's point about winning cases, let me say, firstly when contacting any firm, do not assume that you are dealing with a lawyer at all. Certainly in the police stations when the police say, "your solicitors here" and at the beginning of the interview for the tape say "and will your solicitor please identify himself" the probability will be that the legal adviser will not correct the police or at any time admit the truth, that most of them are accredited police station advisers (a fairly simple qualification compared to a full lawyer), or worse a would-be one of those in training doing his practice hours, or a trainee lawyer, or a paralegal or whoever drew the short straw to be up all night. Its the same with cases, nearly all crown court files are merely overseen by lawyers and all the casework is done by clerks (although there will be a barrister at some point). So the first question is when you evaluate is; are you a qualified lawyer, if they are (or are not) you still need to ascertain their experience level and decide if you are satisfied, its your neck on the block so never mind being too polite about these questions. Ask if they will be working on your case or delegating it.

Don't let age mislead you, some very smart suited advisers in their 60's are ex police/probation, maybe doing law in evening classes and may have little defence experience.

[JF6210]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

To follow on from Alfa's point about winning cases, let me say, firstly when contacting any firm, do not assume that you are dealing with a lawyer at all. Certainly in the police stations when the police say, "your solicitors here" and at the beginning of the interview for the tape say "and will your solicitor please identify himself" the probability will be that the legal adviser will not correct the police or at any time admit the truth, that most of them are accredited police station advisers (a fairly simple qualification compared to a full lawyer), or worse a would-be one of those in training doing his practice hours, or a trainee lawyer, or a paralegal or whoever drew the short straw to be up all night. Its the same with cases, nearly all crown court files are merely overseen by lawyers and all the casework is done by clerks (although there will be a barrister at some point). So the first question is when you evaluate is; are you a qualified lawyer, if they are (or are not) you still need to ascertain their experience level and decide if you are satisfied, its your neck on the block so never mind being too polite about these questions. Ask if they will be working on your case or delegating it.

Don't let age mislead you, some very smart suited advisers in their 60's are ex police/probation, maybe doing law in evening classes and may have little defence experience.

Whilst I can agree with some of your points, I find some points you make to be misleading. Accredited police station representatives should not be underestimated. Indeed, Law Society Guidelines state that a rep may be referred to as a solicitor in a police station, therefore no correction is necessary. Furthermore, reps deal with cases at the police station on a daily basis, sometimes handling several different arrests in a day, whereas a "solicitor" may be someone who sits in an office doing conveyancing all day!

My view is that the important qualities of a rep or solicitor are robustness with the police/prosecution, the ability to make strong lawful challenges and to always act in their client's best interests.

[Sunshine-Band]

Originally Posted by JF6210

Whilst I can agree with some of your points, I find some points you make to be misleading. Accredited police station representatives should not be underestimated. Indeed, Law Society Guidelines state that a rep may be referred to as a solicitor in a police station, therefore no correction is necessary. Furthermore, reps deal with cases at the police station on a daily basis, sometimes handling several different arrests in a day, whereas a "solicitor" may be someone who sits in an office doing conveyancing all day!

My view is that the important qualities of a rep or solicitor are robustness with the police/prosecution, the ability to make strong lawful challenges and to always act in their client's best interests.

No-one is saying that an accredited police station adviser is always rubbish, but what do they really know of the law - they have to a basic-level course only, maybe the basics from a booklet. They know about proceedures in police stations and they do some critical incidents tests, but unless they have an in depth knowledge of criminal law I would prefer to be represented by a decent solicitor. A solicitor who does conveyancing for example all day is dissallowed from performing this task by mertit of professional standards appraising their own obvious unsuitability and also they need to be accedited as a police station adviser AS WELL now if they expect to be paid at all.

Can you point towards the guidelines where it says that a mere PS adviser can refer to themselves as a solicitor - it certainly used to be the case that such a claim was a criminal offence in itself, it may be the case now services are being dumbed down (and even CPS advocates in Ct don't need to be solicitors now), but it sounds odd.

[Alfa]

Let me rephrase this:

The Coffeeshop reviews evaluate the overall quality of a coffeeshop on 5 qualities:

1. Atmosphere & ambiance
2. Service
3. Price of products
4. Quality of products
5. Food & drinks

Members are asked to give 1 - 5 points for each quality. 1 being worst and 5 being best.

I have added the same functionality for the International Lawyer Index. Lawyers & firms will be reviewed here. We can evaluate each lawyer/firm on a number of qualities. We need to define which qualities we want to evaluate.

[Bikelbees]

OK, I summarise my first posting as a pre-amble, namely; Are they a lawyer?

1. Knowledge of Law, especially of case law + experience
2. Availability; available within say 24 hours if necessary.
3. Slanted to defence and savvy - the last thing anyone wants is an naieve or "honest to the court" lawyer if they are in trouble. Although you cannot expect a lawyer to stick their necks out for you, they have to bend and twist and help you.
4. Passionate about clients interests - not just a job and dosh?
5. Interest about human rights and preparedness to challenge with novel and creative argument but only when necessary.

PS Buys loads of whatever he can for you if you are in custody.

[moda00]

Treats you respectfully. I don't use drugs of course and have no drug record but needed a lawyer for something minor. Used a lawyer who specialized in that area recommended by another lawyer friend. But he wanted to handle things without even meeting with me. I insisted on a consult before agreeing to anything, and he agreed, but then during the consult said something very condescending regarding my desire to attend court if court convened and receive verbal or written communication of all relevant matters, which he didn't seem to think was necessary or appropriate. Like I said it was a minor matter in the scheme of things, to him at least, but it was significant enough for me to spend time and money on a lawyer and research the subject to protect my freedoms. If your lawyer gets an attitude or doesn't take the time to communicate effectively with you, find another. You are paying them not the other way around! I've noticed this with many professional fields ex. a doctor who doesn't explain what they are doing or the pros/cons of treatment, just acts like they're the expert and they don't have time for your questions or concerns.

[VincentVan]

Dear Alfa
I just can't explain how much SWIM agonized on this subject.
That's why I think you should know how he acted and then draw your conclusions from his unenviable adventures in the courts of justice.
Here's the story:
At first SWIM just went for the guy on everyone lips, who after getting poor swim to sign a check for a ridiculous amount of money, realized what he was getting into and sent it back, leaving poor SWIM out in the cold.

He then went to one ex girlfriend who recently became partner in a law firm.
She did'nt ask for money but within a week she was sleeping in SWIM's bed, which was hardly the ideal place to discuss court strategy and after the first disastrous day in court SWIM tactfully managed to convince her that she was probably too involved to be professional.
Mercyfully she agreed and SWIM , again, began his search for a defender.

A couple of SWIM's long time friends are in that line of work but the greedy bastards all specialize in banking and finance and besides SWIM wanted a woman.
He feels more confortable with women because he has this despicable tendency to think that every guy is jerk until he proves he's not.
Anyway, he found one .
A quiet petite brunette, very businesslike and matter of fact. SWIMS likes that; so after an hour in her office where she did all the talking, the businesslike petite brunette became his third lawyer in less than three months.
As soon as he walked out of her office SWIM panicked.
He suddenly realized that he he had'nt heard a word of what she had said and could'nt figure why he had signed the papers she had handed him or what those papers could possibly be about.

SWIM has always had a problem in discussing whith girls.
Specially if they are wearing a short black dress.
This time however SWIM made a point in addressing her always with his language equivalent of "counselor" even when their relation became very friendly.

His precautions notwithstanding, SWIM's worries deepened when in court the solicitors (note the plural) of the opposite part interrogated him in a disgustingly theatrical way,making nasty allusions, lieing, provoking him and even laughing in poor SWIM's face.
Surprisingly his worries proved to be baseless as his lawyer, in her trademark quiet and matter of fact style, code at hand, pointed out to the judge that the law apparently, this time was squarely on SWIM's side.
The following three sentences of the court were all in SWIM's favour.

So far so good.
The final court decision unfortunately, was appealed within minutes of being read, so it seems that SWIM will have to start all over again and he' s got a feeling that he would be better off with a different kind of lawyer, but he can't imagine any excuse to get rid of the one who , after all, won the day for three consecutive times.

It's just that she's too honest, correct and polite and swim is not sure these are the qualities he likes to see in his combat mastiff.
Often in court he found himself whishing that he had one (anyone) of the opposite side lawyers.
They did'nt have any constraint of any kind and always went straight for the jugular.
Bastards.

So Alfa, after this unforgettable period of his troubled life, SWIM feels experienced enough to give you these few suggestions:

1) Don't take a lawyer unless you are absolutely sure that he is the meanest son of a bitch you' ve ever come across.

2) In case you get a woman lawyer(swim would recomand it) don't invite her out too often and in any case never invite her to your place afterwards.

3) If you belive in some God this is the time to start praying.

All the best my friend.
You surely deserve it.

VV.

[Bikelbees]

VincentVan, I have heared of people prefering a particular gender of doctor for intimate matters, but not usually a requirement for a lawyer to save their necks in Court. Maybe an unattractive female lawyer or a eunuch would be able to keep SWIY's mind on the trial and away from their genitals.

[Alfa]

When one is in trouble and immensely dependant upon a lawyer, this often creates a deep bond. A bond that can be compared to the bond a client has to his or her psychiatrist or if intense pressure is present there is even a vague similarity with the Stockholm syndrome. Within this context a attractive lawyer can be distracting in a positive or negative sense.

Either way: dedication is what matters. And a lawyer that is acting out of ethical motivation can be very good for a case. More than a mean son of a bitch that sees you as just another case number.

If a female lawyer is a distraction, then focus on the letter of the law and matter of fact. Not on the character.

Though a lawyer should have all kinds of tricks up his or her sleeve. I find that lawyers should not do most of the work. If a case is important enough and if you are competent to do so, you should read, think and dream about the law regarding the matter and suggest roads to be taken.

[Xtaldoc]

Hey People; Swix has had the unfortunate experience of finding himself in both state and US federal court fighting for his life (or the next 20-30 years of it anyway) and resting his hopes on some hired gun attorney with a so-called reputation for winning cases. I feel qualified to speak on this. Before one decides which of the thousands of species of attorneys would best serve his or her needs, it is best to first ask himself a few important questions. First: "am I guilty of the charges" ? If not, you need a 'champion' who is idealistic, driven, stubborn, unintimidated and BELIEVES in the fact that you are wrongly accused. This has a powerful effect both upon his drive to win the day and how the court sees his behavior. Remember that the other officers of the court are all intimately familiar with the defence attorneys they routinely work around. The fact that this attorney firmly believes you are innocent will have an impact upon their demeanor and tactics during the process. If, on the other hand, you ARE guilty of the charges, it may be true that the police went about their job in a manner not acceptable to proper police practice within that locality. In this case, you need a lawyer that can see your point and has a talent for marshalling the facts and digging up the truth (finding the lie that was told to cover up their unlawful acts) from a bunch of police reports and scattered evidence, etc. He has to either be a sharp investigator himself or have access to the best: both is best. If you are guilty and you feel you are caught cold......there are plenty of deal makers out there who have a rep for getting folks off 'lightly' for their crimes. These guys are usually 'bottom feeders' with little or no ethics who play the 'good old boy' network to the advantage of their clients - this represents a worst case bust, IMHO. Now that you have a handle on which type of attorney you need and have gotten some info on his track record, if within the US - Contact the Bar Association and inquire as to whether or not there have been any grievances filed against him by wronged clients: they are bound to supply this info. Bear in mind that a disgruntled ex-client may not be the most credible opinion about the attorneys ability, but the attorney himself is bound by law to disclose to all clients the fact of any pending grievances against him. His failure to inform you of this suggests strongly that he is not really in your corner and may again be selective about the facts he discloses to you..... The first thing I cover with an attorney is that I intend to launch a very "hands on" defence: I will expect to receive a copy of every single piece of paperwork and evidence submitted by the prosecution, as well as any 'offers' made by them immediately. An attorney who likes to "work in the dark" will never work for me because I interpret that attitude as, " Shut up and let me do my job..." On the other hand, one that does not flinch when a client wants to take an active role in his own defence is usually cooperative, in general, and honest with his client about strategy and outcome. Also; many attorneys dont often actually find themselves arguing a case before a jury at trial. If you know that is where your case is likely headed, find out whether or not he has a good win/loss trial record. Xtaldoc out.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good info, thanks for sharing.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Alfa

When considering whether a lawyer is good or not, what qualities would you review?

"Will he get me off?" is not a bad metric. Can he get me sent somewhere where I won't get raped is the second line of defense, honestly. Is there a better metric?

duncan added 9 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by duncan

"Will he get me off?" is not a bad metric. Can he get me sent somewhere where I won't get raped is the second line of defense, honestly. Is there a better metric? Anyway, another thing I want is a lawyer _I'm_ paying. If you have so little money that you can't afford a lawyer... maybe crime isn't for you.

Good lord.

[415to916Horse]

Choosing the Right Lawyer or Public Defender:
If I were to choose a lawyer, It would be an older male with glasses that looks smart and serious and also acts very serious(I know from lots of experience; Please Trust me!) If you cannot afford a true attorney. You can switch Public Defenders anytime you want! You can ask for extensions on cases to get a new Attorney or Public Defender(State Paid Criminal Defense Attorney). Make sure your attorney looks confident as well and you feel confident in him and even ask him questions. What do you think the best you can do is with my case? Always ask him or her questions if you are unsure about things and are curious to know about him or her.

My Specific Case(Still active and has been nearly 1 year since the start)
My certain case I will describe here has been going on for a year because it keeps getting extended due to officer or witness unavailability, or the DA(District Attorney[The Attorney's that work for the state that try to put criminals behind bars or prosecute them.]) is in a different trial, or my Attorney is in a different trial.). Here is a reason the state of CA keeps losing money! They have all these employees, officers, clerks, State-paid attorneys and DA's and Judges, Court Reporters, Etc. Come in everyday to extend trials 98% of the time! They do this daily to people awaiting trial! At first I had a middle-aged 45-50 year old decent attorney(we'll call him Brian) that worked hard at his job and took it seriously that seemed optimistic like he would do whatever he could in his power to win the case; Sadly however, he had been rotated out of the unit and was upgraded to felony division of the Public Defenders since he was good. Next, they had assigned a younger attorney(we'll call him Tim) who had transferred from Los Angeles after that to replace him after in the case and he would flirt with the District Attorney who happened to be a pretty cute younger girl herself, and I said why are you talking with her and smiling/flirting with her? I asked him straight up how many of those DA girls do you wanna fuck or get with(Exact words said)? He replied, "None, heh, man" as he smirked. Me and Tom thought this guy was no good anymore but still were not 100% sure and that he cared more about himself, his personal image, the money, and the DA Girls. We had a hunch that seemed to be true! I switched lawyers immediately after Tom's Case Lost.(I went into the Public Defender's Office and asked for a different attorney and said, "I don't think this attorney is fit for my case and not taking it seriously enough and told them about him and how he acted. I have not seen him in the court house since then. He may have been fired for all I know). I had met a person that had this Young lawyer as well that we'll call Tim at the time I had him as well and we became friends personally(We'll call him Tom) and talked about our cases and about our attorney we shared.

Tom's Case with a Terrible Public Defender/Attorney (I had for a while)!
Tom and I had a hunch about this attorney. That he didn't care and was two-faced. The attorney Tim had lost Tom's DUI case that he could have won if he had been his own attorney! Even though he was a passenger and passenger when the police arrived; they could not prove he drove at all! Tom had a designated driver first of all. Second his D.D.(Designated Driver) had drank a few drinks as well and while he was parallel parking he backed up into the car behind him and no damage was done to either car; However, someone called the police to report it. Supposedly his neighbor does not like Tom either (coincidence?). So his friend didn't want to take the blame for it even though he was below the legal limit of .08 (But in CA, if you are still below the limit you can still get a DUI if they think you are unfit to drive.) When police arrived the vehicle was off, Tom was sitting in his passenger seat and his keys were inside his residence. They Handcuffed him and brought him down to the station to interrogate him to try and get a confession and clinched down on his handcuffs with all their force and twisted on them to get him to talk because he was just laughing acting ridiculous drunk. However, Tom was extremely drunk and made a fool out of himself to the police. He admitted he was plastered drunk and said that doesn't hurt. He said to me, "The Officers said, 'he's still smiling'. "Squeeze him harder" one of the Officers said. Tom asked, "How are your wife and kids?" The officer replied, "Is that a threat?" Tom said, "No, Just back off and get me some water." When the officer brought the first water, he threw it at Tom and threw Tom on the ground and said, "Drink Up". He replied, "No, can I just get a water" he asked politely? He got a water this time for real. So the only thing was that they were able to prove he had been drinking at a club but not driving and he was not drunk in public. Only in private places(the club and his own home) Tom had everything set up for his B-Day including the D.D. In the trial, however, Is where they played the video of him extremely drunk and cut out the parts of the officers harassing him. The DA asked about his H2, "That's a nice truck huh, you like that truck don't you?" Which I thought was irrelevant totally but, she said you won't be driving it for a while now. When Tom was drunk in the interrogation, they said I'm going to take your license for 2 years and Tom replied with, "YOU MIGHT AS WELL TAKE IT FOR TEN YEARS SINCE I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!!" The Officer wrote that down and also brought that up in the trial. During the trial the DA questioned Tom with, "Haven't you heard Beer before Liquor, gets you more sicker?" However, Tom replied with a smart ass comment, "No Beer and Liquor messes(he may have said "fucks") you up quicker." However, the Jury did laugh. The DA also asked how much he had to drink that night which He didn't know the answer to. He just replied with, "I didn't keep count or track of how many drinks I have, I had a lot". This just proved he was drunk. I think if you are ever a juror, consider the facts! Look for the HARD evidence of the crimes they are trying to convict the person of no matter what they look like! To the Jury that convicted my friend in Sacramento Superior Court. You Wrongly Convicted Someone and now he is going to jail for it! Question everything, Request to see Full videos! I think just by him being so drunk and replying the way he did in the interrogation video and his smart ass comment got him convicted by the Jury. So the thing is keep an eye out for your attorney and don't try to impress or make the jury laugh. Tom is still in jail since he refused to do Work Project or Ankle Monitor even though he had plenty of money to do it. He said, "Fuck it, I need a vacation anyway and if I do straight time, the time is cut in half." So yep, My friend Tom is still serving his sentence since this crooked lawyer Tim. The lesson here watch and absorb info on the way your lawyer acts!

My Case Continues with my New Attorney / Public Defender(I'm Confident!)
Anyways, my new Attorney; this one seems serious and smart about the law and knows the law from A to Z. I've taken a few criminal justice/administration of justice classes myself so I know the laws slightly and a bit and this Attorney really has them down at a high very expertise level. This guy I have now is strictly business and no flirting/smiling with the DA. I estimate his age to be 45-50 just FYI(For Your Information). He is always serious when he talks and has a very professional manner when I speak to him. I am confident in this lawyer as he seems experienced and is ready to go to trial since he knows that I am telling the truth. I do have a secret audio tape of the witness(that I had handed over to my lawyer); the one testifying against me(We'll call her Sasha) saying she lied to the police to try and get me into trouble because I am a friend of her neighbor(her and her neighbor[We'll call her Dawn] have bad blood and always have feuds with each other). He says he will grill her on the stand and press the lies out(My attorney also has copies of the police reports between the two neighbors which is large extensive list). So, the police either believed her story or they falsified their report to bring me in on charges since they did not have anything serious going on and had nothing better to do. Also, the 4 police are going to testify that I had consented to a search of my vehicle which I did NOT(I know the law, Why would I say yes if I knew that I had the 4 Oxycontin in there). They said they would bring a K-9 Unit then, so I said that's fine to have a dog come out and sniff around the vehicle. I was polite with the first two officers and even offered to take out the lights for them and showing them how they flash and how I only use them for show how they flash different designs and the LED's(Lights) could be swapped out for different colors. In the report, They said I was puzzled that they flashed red and blue even though I said I would not be able to change them instantly. However, they said, "NO, We will take them out." Right Before the K-9 unit arrives, the first two officers that were already on scene were already searching the vehicle tearing through it when I thought they were just supposed to be grabbing the light out. My friend witnessed this.(My friend that came out first to see what was going on[We'll call him John; my best friend] followed by his gf[We'll call her Anita], then my gf[We'll call her Suzy])The dog was not even brought out the whole time. In the police report I purchased from the DA's office; It says I consented to a search of the vehicle. I know the law and would not consent since I knew I had 4 Oxycontin pills in my vehicle in a cigar box. There was also no reason such as probable cause to search either. However, my attorney says this one will be tough to beat since he says the 4 police officers will lie on the stand(That is Perjury against the officers I said, but it is near impossible to prove that what they are saying is lies is what my attorney told me, but he said we can try our best.) against my word which is why our system is fucked up. They will say prove it then we lied is what my attorney said. I replied to my attorney, I will ask them to prove the Pills are mine then and I said that's ridiculous Cops can get away with lies on the stand and sleep at night, and not even give a damn about fucking up someone's life(possibly forever!); they were definitely out of reach of the driver's seat though so I will mention prove they were mine. The only thing we can do about that is a credibility test for each of us which the officers likely will win since judges and Juries see Police officers as honest hard working people. All I have is one witness and myself that seen that they started searching before the K-9 Arrived, but then the Consent issue comes into play again because he did not hear the conversation on the consent to search or anything about probable cause. He said he thought he overheard them say probable cause since I had smelt like marijuana which I had not even been smoking. I had finished smoking a Black&Mild cigar about 5 minutes before the first 2 Officers arrived to the house. They came to the house and asked who the owner of the car was. I said "That's my car". They said come on out here so we can talk about whats going on. "Do you know why we are here?" The officer asks. I replied "No, Maybe my tinted front windows" since it is illegal to have tint darker than 35% in CA. "No, they said". The other officer said, " turn around, we are just going to detain you for now, and search your person". Nothing Illegal on me. I also asked for what? The officer replied for any weapons." My friend, his gf, and my gf followed me outside to witness everything; however, the officers asked them to stay a bit back(probably to not hear any conversation, such as the consent issue or how they would execute a search illegally). I had Red/Blue Flashing Lights suctioned cupped onto my windshield. This is how this whole thing started. I was driving with my friend my gf and my friend(we'll call him Jack). So as I parked behind an empty parked car across the street from the feuding neighbor's home. I said Jack(John's Stepbrother; that I know decently well.) have you seen my lights yet(keep in mind, I'm parked behind an empty van)? I flipped them on while the car was parked and off for no more than 45 Seconds at the very maximum which the feuding neighbor that does not like the neighbor who's house I happened to be at. Apparently, she called 911 and said I attempted to pull her over with my lights which is completely false! My attorney knows all about this and knows that these two neighbors have bad blood and call the police on each other all the time. So I was charged with 2 misdemeanor counts: one being impersonating a police officer and possession of a prescription schedule 2 narcotics for personal use without a prescription. So, I know from experience what to look for in attorneys. It depends on the case, their experience, whether they are strictly business and serious about their job, and If they actually care, or have a conscience for people that are truly innocent like I am. I am still going to court for the same case that happened about 1 year ago so I have seen much of the justice system know and absorbed how most things work inside courtrooms and with Judges, DA's, Attorneys or Public Defenders. Also My attorney says the witness that is trying to testify against me may be a drug addict and sounds sketchy so her credibility is terrible and may not even be able to testify. She has not showed up either or very little(She has not given a statement except when the officers arrived at the 911 call.) according to my attorney. A little Information acquired by my attorney through the DA. Oh the Drama, and the Judicial and Justice System how messed up it is.

So far my case still travels on and I will keep you updated on it(In this section.)

Reputation Comments on this post:

good information, but presented a bit poorly

[sirmoonie]

Most lawyers start the day's drinking and railing over lunch, so meet your lawyer early in the AM if possible. If you sense that he's already lit up, you should probably find another one.

[Sunshine-Band]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

Most lawyers start the day's drinking and railing over lunch, so meet your lawyer early in the AM if possible. If you sense that he's already lit up, you should probably find another one.

Ideally your lawyer would be using more advanced drugs. Criminal lawyers are in the courts in the morning, very jittery from multiple Starbucks or if you are lucky it will just be coke - as you say there is a window of opportunity before lunch, it is at 12.53 - until 1.00pm.

[babymakesbeats]

In the UK it's very different, as you don't strictly get to choose your barrister.

The usual procedure is you contact your family solicitor (if you have one) or speak to a legal aid/duty solicitor who refers your case to the appropriate chambers if necessary (if your case is crown court or above it must be presented by a barrister or a solicitor with advocacy rights).

In this sense, you can't really evaluate your barrister before your trial, and unless it is a complex case (or you have a lot of money) it is unlikely you will have anything more than 30 minutes time with your advocate before the trial (they go through all the statements and notes etc in their own time).

A good way to choose a barrister (if you have the option) is to use a chambers that is reputable in criminal law. A good way to get high quality representation is by going through a charity such as release, who have the details of excellent specialist legal professionals (who will sometimes take your case on for free).

But in terms of evaluation, because of the way the english legal system works in terms of separation between solicitors and barristers it is very difficult (unless you are rich or lucky) to get any choice.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Informative about the UK legal system.
	Very vital information indeed. Cowboy wishes he had known this before he was prosecuted in UK...

[Sunshine-Band]

For any publically funded Crown Court matter you are entitled to choose your legal team - its just a question of being up front about it - when your solicitor chooses your barrister you should be informed and be able to make any comments about this choice as to whether you accept this choice or not. If you are unhappy with the barrister then you can dismiss him at any time, although doing that without justification might lose your entitlement to legal aid for a barrister - certainly if he is not up to the job then you ought to be able to dismiss them and get another based upon your lack of confidence in them due to bad advice etc. For any serious matter you should insist on a conference with counsel and solicitor where you can meet you barrister at the advice stage rather than just before the court hearing. It's difficult to know who is any good or not from the public's point of view, you simply do not know without really researching the subject and indeed the law to make sure you are not being stitched up. The 90% rule applies across the legal profession - 90% are in it only for the cheque and are generally naff - 10% will give you a level of service.

[babymakesbeats]

swim agrees with sunshine band, that's why charities such as release play such a vital role.

[jgarlopa]

If being prosecuted for a drug crime, for example, the lawyer should have life experience in the field in order to be able to defend well. One time Cowboy was being prosecuted for intent to supply based on the amount alone (a pretty small amount by a junkie's standards); all the other evidence against him was heresay. Just by reading the witness statement (on which the accuser lied in 4 places), it was blatantly obvious to any regular drug user that Cowboy could not be convicted based on such a weak case. Any halfway decent solicitor would have kept the case in Magistrates Court, but Cowboy had a shit duty solicitor, so he lost about 8 months of his life for no reason. The barrister that had been representing him was a total cunt who had no knowledge at all about drugs, and when it finally came time for the trial, he couldn't show up because his wife had just gone into labour. This was a very good thing for Cowboy, because this shit barrister was replaced by a former hippy from San Francisco who new everything that Cowboy knew about the drug culture. He also had more than 20 years of experience practicing in London, so most of the prosecuting barristers knew him. Because of this guy's clout, he was able to get the prosecuting barrister to tell the judge that they no longer wished to proceed with the charge of intent to supply, so the judge was forced to lower the charge down to simple possession, to which Cowboy plead guilty and was released immediately that day.

Said lawyer should also be as aggressive as possible, as it is often not what they say, but how they say it, that makes the biggest difference in convincing the judge and jury.

[vale]

i'v used a lawyer afew times. My opinion is that a refrence from someone in the same line of work is helpfull and that its not what the lawyer know but who he knows that makes him good. Keep this in mind you might have to do time a good lawyer can't allways get you off,but he will get you the best deal possable.

now here is some advice that no one asked for but all should know: In getting the best deal they will ask for info 'what , who ,where '. The more you know the better the deal kind of thing. BAD idea there will be some record of this and in california prison systems we find it. So you will be looking over you shoulder all the time and that makes time long and hard. So be strong and pay your dues. Trust me i know.Heehee

[dyingtomorrow]

Just wanted to throw in a word of caution about the "who they know" theory of picking a lawyer. Having one who is familiar with the judge and prosecutor is almost always a positive trait. On the other hand, you might want to be wary of one who claims to be old college or work friends with the prosecutor for your case. Many people automatically assume this is a case winning fact, and will pay a premium for such a lawyer, largely because of the potential defense lawyer's pitch portraying it that way to the unwitting.

Unless you are personally best friends with this lawyer, you have no idea how the relationship is going to affect the case. Some likely scenarios are for the worst. For example, if they really are such good buddies, the odds are high that they will be much more inclined to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement (for themselves) rather than your lawyer fighting tooth and nail for you. Or worse, your lawyer taking your money, and then bamboozling you into taking a crappy plea deal because his good friend Mr. Prosecutor really needs to up his stats. If anything there is a slight motivation prejudiced against you where such relationships exist, as under certain arrangements the lawyer gets his full fee, and can curry favor with the prosecutor on the side.

A story of personal experience to illustrate. SWIM's little brother was charged with a Class X Felony for selling ecstasy downstate at the college they both attended. He got a local lawyer first, who although somewhat dull, knew the system very well. His plan was to delay the trial until past the upcoming elections, knowing they would be pushing harder to get more prosecutions. SWIM's rich businessman uncle stepped in, and knew a lawyer who had gone to lawschool with the prosecutor and was friends with him. They switched lawyers, paying him a ton of money, and the previous lawyer just wished them luck in a facetious way for not knowing what they were doing. SWIM started law school himself while his brother was in prison, and learned in time that the new lawyer basically made a completely horrible plea deal to politically help out his prosecutor buddy and wrap the case up ASAP so he could get his money and get out of there. SWIM's brother ended up doing most of a 4 year sentence in prison.

Again, just a word of caution.