Finding An Experienced Lawyer No matter what your legal needs are you will find that there are loads of lawyers in your town that advertise which they are experts in your kind of case. This may make the procedure of finding one with significant amounts of experience a bit of a challenge. However, if you follow the following it will be possible to narrow down your quest to the right one out of almost no time. The first step is to produce a listing of the lawyers which are listed in the area specializing in your needs. When you are causeing this to be list you need to only include those that you may have a great vibe about depending on their advertisement. You may then narrow this list down if you take some time evaluating their internet site. There you will be able to find the amount of years they have been practicing plus some general information about their success rates. At this stage your list ought to have shrunken further to those which you felt had professional websites as well as an appropriate amount of experience. You must then spend some time to look up independent reviews of every attorney. Be sure to see the reviews instead of just relying on their overall rating. The information in the reviews provides you with an idea of the way that they interact with their customers and how much time they invest into each case they are taking care of. Finally, you will want to meet up with at least the very last three lawyers which may have the credentials you are looking for. This will provide you with time to truly evaluate how interested they are in representing you and the case. It really is important to follow most of these steps to ensure that you find a person which has the right amount of experience to help you get the ideal outcome.
Local Time in Lake Havasu |
Wikipedia Information About Lake Havasu |
Google Map of Lake Havasu
Youtube Video's of Lake Havasu |
Info from Wiki on Motorcycle Accident
ACTIONPages is your local directory publisher. Serving markets in Arizona, California, Washington, and Canada. ACTIONPages the best local choice for cost-effective advertising.
Some of the cites we server are,
Veterinarians | Cabinets | Concrete | Decks | Guns | Janitorial | Lawn maintenance | Tae kwan do | Optometric physicians | Podiatrist | Allergy asthma doctors | boob job | RV dealers | Storage | Window washing
Will A (Liberal) Lawyer Try To Sue The Lapd For &Quot;Wrongful Death&Quot; Of Chris Dorner?
Conspiracy Theorist Are Already Coming Out Of The Woodwork,Saying The Police Said &Quot;Burn It Down&Quot;..I Say They Were Saying &Quot;Its Burning Down&Quot;.And Saying They Refused To Allow The Fire Dept To Put It Out...Well,Duhh...Rounds Were Going Off During The Fire,Why Would A Fireman Even Want To Get Close To It?
Any lawyer will jump at a big payday.
Still have to prove it was him, LAPD shot up a few cars from mistaken identity thinking it was Dorner. Now two different wallets, the other one was found in his truck. Better to wait on the autopsy for positive id.
I Paid For A Patent Search But The Company Was Not A Patent Attorney?
Did I Waste My Money And Get Scammed??
Not necessarily. There are many professionals in the patent searching biz who do a good job. However, you would still need an attorney to validate their search methodology (did they look everywhere they were supposed to and ask the right questions when they got there), evaluate the search results, and provide a legal opinion and recommendation as to the results.
You can still take the search results from the search company and have a patent attorney look it over to see whether it is of any value or if you should ask for a refund.
What Happens After You Confess After Asking For A Lawyer?
I Love Law Shows Like The Practice And Having Seen Many Episodes Of Many Such Shows, I Wonder: If I'M Accused Of, Say, Murder, And I Ask For A Lawyer At The Beginning Of The Interrogation, All Questioning Should Be Stopped Right Away. Right?
However, In Law Shows The Interrogation Quite Often Continues After The Cops Gloss Over The Request For A Lawyer. (I'Ve Seen This Happen In The Practice, Day Break, Dexter, Law And Order Etc.) What If I Subsequently Confess To Everything, Giving Many Details The Cops Didn'T Even Know... Would This Confession Be Thrown Out Because It Is Illegally Obtained? If Yes, Would It Subsequently Not Be Very Hard To Try Me Again (Assuming Double Jeopardy Doesn'T Apply) Because The Cops Would Not Only Have To Find Other Evidence That I Committed The Crime, But Wouldn'T They Also Have To Prove That It Wasn'T In Any Way Derived From The Illegally Obtained Confession? ('Fruit From A Poisoned Tree')
The police will only advise you of your Miranda warnings if you are subject to custodial interrogation. That means you can't leave, and they intend to ask you questions. Once you ask for an lawyer, they have to stop asking you questions. No ifs, ands or buts about it.. We all know that in the real world, at that point, the interrogation is over. Unless you have your own attorney in the next room, no public defender is going to appear to give you advice. So, you ask for a lawyer and the detectives get up and leave and a patrol officer or two walk you back down to the lock up. No more talking.
If the police are stupid, they will continue to ask you questions. If you answer them, after having asked for an attorney, whatever you say will likely be suppressed. Of course, it will only get thrown out if you tell that to your lawyer and a pre-Trial motion to suppress evidence is filed.
Now, if you ask for a lawyer, and the police stop talking to you, you can always change your mind. If you decide to start up the conversation again, and you specifically explain that you changed your mind, whatever you say will be admissible. I have had that happen many times, especially on cases with co-defendents. One guy will ask for a lawyer, and end up back downstairs in the cell. When his pals are still "chatting it up" with detectives, he might get nervous that they are blaming it all on him. So, as happens very often, he will ask the turn-key to get in touch with the detectives and tell them he wants to talk. When the interrogation resumes, it is necessary that the investigator document that the defendant changed his mind, and specifically declined legal counsel.
Now, just as a side comment. Don't pay attention to the crap yous ee on TV. None of the TV cop or lawyer shows are anywhere near close to reality. I have taken hundreds of confessions from everything from Library Theft to Murder. Any good detective knows what he/she can or can't do. Once the dirt ball um,,, defendant...asks for an attorney, the conversation is over.
Double jeopardy only attaches if you have been found "Not Guilty". If the case is withdrawn by the prosecution, or dismissed at a Preliminary hearing, "Jeopardy" has not attached. And you can eventually be brought to Trial for those charges. That's another thing that gets a little confusing to people who watch cop and lawyer shows.
Can Someone Explain Lawsuits To Me?
I Know The Guy Who Was Completely Embarassed On The Plane Got $206K For Being Made To Stand In The Back, Just Ticked Him Off.
I'Ve Been Injured In A Car Accident, I Was Ticked Off, Treated Badly, Embarassed To Hell & Back, Facing Bankrupcy, Etc, How Come I'M Not Going To Get That Kind Of Money?
Why Isn'T There Some Set Of Standards For These Things?
A lawsuit requires several things or conditions.
1. Something has to have happened to you of a negative nature, whether injury, insult, object or monetary loss, or other types of subjective or objective harm.
Just being "ticked off" probably would get laughed out of court. The guy at the back of the plane might well have had a civil rights violation, which is a lot more than being ticked off. Public embarassment might qualify depending on degree and nature of the event. Physical injury as the result of a car accident absolutely qualifies for lawsuits.
2. A person's action must be directly responsible for causing the negative event.
If a person does things that lead to your being injured in the legal sense, and you don't contribute to the event in any way, and there is no hint of it being an act of nature / act of God, then there can be an argument for cause and effect relationship between the person's actions and your injury. This is tricky and hard to explain other than to say that if you are a klutz and get hurt, a defense against a lawsuit would be that you are klutz and therefore are more likely to be hurt without anyone's help.
3. There must be a way to assign monetary value to the event or to its result.
Property action: Some jerk drives his car into yours while it is parked. You can file a suit for property damage.
Personal injury: Same jerk drives his car into yours while you are in it, whether parked or moving. You are physically injured by the accident. You can file a suit for personal injury.
Civil Rights violation: Many constitutional laws make certain actions punishable through the courts as personal rights issues. For instance, the guy on the plane. Being told to not stay in a particular area - when there was no safety hazard and no other reason to stay in that area -might have been a civil rights violation.
4. A lawyer must be willing to take your case on hearing its nature. If you run into a raft of lawyers who do not want to take the case, you might reconsider its worthiness as a legal action.
The lawyer files the suit. You become the plaintiff, the person or persons who caused you to experience the event become the defendants. You request some type of damages or corrective behavior or perhaps both. The defendant might try to settle out of court for less money than you requested. Or, you can roll the dice with a jury and see how much they want to award you - if anything.
Legal Question About Civil Litigation?
What Are Some Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Civil Litigation System In The U.S.?
Often in the criminal litigation scene, the victim is often like a 3rd party in the conversation between the perpetrator and the state. Its more geared toward protecting society as a whole rather than the victim, and its often up to the prosecutor, not the person actually hurt by the crime to decide what charges are actually brought to court. In the criminal court system their priorities are often the punishment and restoration of the criminal and his relationship with society of the whole, rather than helping the victim.
In addition to compensating victims financially for their losses, civil remedies empower victims to exercise their rights. In a civil lawsuit, the victim rather than the state is in control of essential decision making. Victims decide whether or not to pursue a civil suit, and they choose their own attorneys. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases, requiring a less rigorous measure of the evidence to establish liability.
There are also some disadvantatges. If the guilty party has no assets/money or is not insured, there isn't much you can do to recoup damages or losses. Often repeating painful experiences in such a stressful environment in yet another case can prove hard for the victims. Additionally victims may loose or receive minimal compensation for a very expensive process, an additional financial burden.
Criminal Defense Lawyers - Do You Ever Ask If The Clients Guilty?
Yes- as Eisbar points out, whether or not they are "guilty" is a legal question that only the court can answer, so the client can't say if they are guilty in the legal sense. However, lawyers can and do ask their clients if they committed certain acts- e.g. even if the client cannot legally determine "I am guilty of this offense in the legal sense", they could certainly say "yes, I robbed the bank, I went in there with the gun and got the money". So if one doesn't want to be too pedantic, yes they can.
The lawyers don't care if they are guilty or not- their job is to provide them with the best legal defense possible, and they cannot reveal anything their client says to them. Whether or not the client is guilty, and what the evidence shows, can help influence the strategy the lawyer advises.
A case I remember following back in the 1990's in Florida was a good example of this. The so-called "Sun Gym gang" was a bunch of crooks who all met through the same gym, who basically formed a gang that kidnapped and extorted people for money. When the cops caught up with them, the evidence against them was so utterly overwhelming and they were so obviously guilty, their lawyers basically advised them to not even bother trying to argue their innocence. Instead, the strategy they advised for their clients was basically to try and save their own lives (i.e. avoid the death penalty), so they focused on character evidence and so forth. (Even that failed, as it happens, and many of them got death sentences, but that was the goal). If the case wasn't as clear-cut, they may have advised fighting it.