Finding An Experienced Lawyer Whatever your legal needs are you will see that there are countless lawyers in your neighborhood that advertise that they focus on your type of case. This will make the entire process of finding one with a lot of experience somewhat of a challenge. However, should you follow the following you will be able to limit your research on the right one in almost no time. The first step is to produce a list of the lawyers which are listed in your area specializing in your needs. When you are making this list you should only include those which you have an excellent vibe about based upon their advertisement. You can then narrow this list down by taking some time evaluating their website. There you should be able to find just how many years they have been practicing and some general details about their success rates. At this point your list must have shrunken further to individuals which you felt had professional websites plus an appropriate amount of experience. You must then make time to lookup independent reviews of each attorney. Make sure to look at the reviews instead of just relying upon their overall rating. The info in the reviews will provide you with a solid idea of the direction they connect to their clients and the time they invest into each case they are focusing on. Finally, it is advisable to meet with no less than the final three lawyers which have the credentials you are searching for. This gives you time to truly evaluate how interested they are in representing both you and your case. It is vital that you follow all of these steps to ensure that you find a person which includes the best measure of experience to get you the best possible outcome.
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,
Applying For Legal Aid In Nc?
My Fiance Wants To File For Custody Of His Daughter, He'S Willing To Go 50/50 With His Ex. He Works Full Time And Has A Steady Income But Due To All The Bills And My Ex Pays No Child Support At All For My Kids, My Fiance Foots The Bill On Everything. If He Were To Apply For Legal Aid Here In Nc To Help Get Custody What Would Be His Income Limit He Could Make To Apply? (He Pays $400 Monthly To Ex For C/S)
Legal aid will not help in a family law situation. He can do it himself or pay a paralegal typing service to prepare the paperwork.
May A Criminal Defense Attorney Ethically Do The Following?
1. Vigorously Challenge The Reliability Or Credibility Of A Rape Victim On Cross-Examination When The Defense Attorney Knows That The Woman Has Testified Truthfully.
2. Put His Or Her Client To The Stand Knowing That The Client Intends To Lie.
3. Advise A Client Regarding Potential Defenses To A Crime Before Finding Out The Facts Of The Case Even Though This May Lead The Client To Lie About The Facts So As To Take Advantage Of One Of The Described Defenses (E.G., The Jimmy Stewart Scenario From Anatomy Of A Murder).
I will try to address each aspect of your three questions to the best of my knowledge. For reference, I grew up with an attorney who practiced criminal defense. I will try to explain the rational for each of my answers.
"1. Vigorously challenge the reliability or credibility of a rape victim on cross-examination when the defense attorney knows that the woman has testified truthfully." Ethical or not ethical?
Ethical. Any good defense attorney (in my books, at least), WILL NOT know for sure if the woman is testifying truthfully. There are so many aspects which effect the truth of a statement - whether or not the person is fabricating a story (lying), whether or not the person is not telling the entire story (deception by omission), and the inherent flaws of eye witness testimony.
The fact is, the defendant has the RIGHT to be defended. Furthermore, the issue as to whether or not the witness is lying is not the determination of the attorney, but of the judge and/or jury. And the judge and/or jury has the right to know about the credibility and reliability of any witness - whether or not they are currently "telling the truth". Not to bring up points of creditability and reliability would be unethical, because the jury has the right to know the facts surrounding a situation, not just the facts of the situation itself.
"2. Put his or her client to the stand knowing that the client intends to lie." Ethical or not ethical?
Prima facie, this is not only unethical, but possibly illegal. It could be illegal because the attorney would know that a crime is occurring, and thus not be reporting it.
However, many defense attorneys avoid this issue very skillfully. It goes back to how anyone actually KNOWS the person is lying. Whether or not a person is lying comes down, in some degree, to a subjective examination of the person and their statements. Often times an attorney might not even ASK their client what happened, so that the attorney does not "know" if their client will later lie about it on the stand. As to whether or not that is ethical, it most likely is - by attorney standards, though perhaps not by normal society standards. However, most attorneys won't put their client on the stand if they know their client intends to lie.
Finally, the biggest grey area here for me is the idea that an attorney does not always have control of their client. A client may DEMAND to take the stand with the intention of lying. An attorney may know that, but not have much they can do about it. The fact is, a defendant has the right to take the stand in their own defense. The do not, however, have the right to lie. The shade of grey here falls into the attorney-client privilege - the attorney may "know" the defendant is lying, but to release such information to the police could be violating the attorney-client privilege. The alternative to this, however, is to step aside as the person attorney, which effectively limits the attorney's responsibility for the actions of their client. Some judges, however, won't allow that to happen well into a case. So, there is definitely a shade of grey on that question.
"3. Advise a client regarding potential defenses to a crime before finding out the facts of the case even though this may lead the client to lie about the facts so as to take advantage of one of the described defenses." Ethical or not ethical?
Ethical. The attorney has not control over whether or not a client lies about things. In fact, an attorney might advise a client like this in order to avoid the legal/ethical dilemma I just described above. If the client knows the potential defenses to a crime, chances are they will start lying then - to their own attorney. It prevents the attorney from "knowing" the person lies later on. In addition, a client has the right to know the types of defenses available to them regardless of their involvement in a crime. It is an attorneys job to provide such information.
Furthermore (some people are unaware of this fact), an defendant does not have to provide a defense for a crime. They are innocent until proven guilty - if they were forced to provide a defense, it would be because they were presumed guilty, which is not how the justice system is designed. Of course, we could get in a discussion as to whether or not the innocent until proven guilty concept is actually in practice in the courts of today, but it's not important to this concept. The fact is, it IS law, and as such, exists - even if it isn't always practiced. States must prove the case against the defendant, not the defendant proving their defense against the state. All that said, however, most defendants want their attorneys to mount a defense against the State's case, so that is what they do (and it is usually the best thing to do, all theories of criminal justice aside).
I could go on and on about the legal concepts which govern the ethics of these examples. But I won't. I think the answers I gave will help you understand at least to some extent the ethics involved in defense work. It is worth mentioning, however, just like the problems with the justice system, there are problems with attorneys. Like people, some are simply not ethical. I do not project this on the entire profession of attorneys, however. I believe that, like most people, most attorneys are ethical. That said, they have a deeper understanding of the law, and deriver their ethics from the law, not just society's standards. Because of that, attorneys are often seen as unethical - their ethical standards do not match that of society. One must understand, however, that their ethics are derived from their legal obligations under the law, and will reflect those obligations, not society’s expectations.
Is It Normal For A Criminal Appellate Attorney To Charge $6000 For An Appeal On A Criminal Case?
Do Criminal Appellate Attorney'S Charge Only $6000? Is This Normal For Them To Charge This Low Price? Do They Only Charge Such A Low Price If They Feel That They Cannot Win The Case For The Client?
It depends on the issue in the appeal and how much work is involved in writing the appellate brief. That is not an unusual fee in my area of the country. I frequently charge a flat fee for appeals rather than an hourly fee. The price has nothing to do with whether the attorney thinks they can win or not.
Have You Completed Law School?
I Am Wondering What The Job Market Is Like For New Grads. What Is The Coursework Like? I Have A B.S With A 3.9 Gpa So Getting In To Law School Should Not Be A Problem, I Think The Problem Is Deciding If It'S Worth Getting Into. I Asked A Similar Question Like This Yesterday, And This Guy Gave Me A Very Interesting Answer, But I Only Got 1 Answer, So I Need More Back-Up Answers To Compare. Thanks-
I am in law school. Your 3.9 is good but is nothing without a good LSAT. I graduated with a GPA around that and did poorly on the LSAT and my law school options were very limited. GPA is only half of the equation, and at some schools they weigh the LSAT heavier.
The coursework is like nothing you have seen before. The reading is brutal (300-400 pages a week), it is hard reading, it takes about an hour to read 10 pages at first. You read cases (opinions that judges have written) and statutes. For the cases you must know the facts, the holding, the legal rule and the reasonign for the rule and holding. Casebooks are not like textbooks, they do not simply say here is the law. You have to read the cases and figure out what the judges are saying and more importantly why they are ruling as they are.
You are graded on one final exam at the end of the semester. It is not like exams you have ever taken. There will be essay portions where it is a 4 page fact pattern and you are expected to find all of the legal issues (anywhere from 8-20) and analyze them all. Issue spotting is the most difficult part. The multiple choicce is also very different from what you have seen, as they will lay out tons of facts and then have choices from A-E. Questions on law school exams are not like, "what is the definition of X" they are much more difficult.
Class is taught using the Socratic Method which entails the professor calling on random students (not voluntary participation) and drilling them on a case that was assigned. If you are not prepared (ie, you did not do the reading or read it thourghly enough) the prof will give you a pass. This counts as an absence. The ABA (american bar association) mandates that a student be present at 85% of regularly scheduled classes to even take the exam. This means, roughly speaking, you get about four absences a semester anything over that and you are automatically withdrawn from the class.
Success in undergrad does not always equal success in law school. Law school is graded on a strict curve (at my school it is 25% A, 30% B, and 40% C). This means that the majority of students will get C's. Furthermore, in undergrad you have a lot of slackers in your class, that changes in law school. Everyone there has had acedemic success and most students are used to getting straight A's, which is close to impossible in law school (you must really work hard).
As for job market, you will get mixed answers. If you go to a good school or graduate near the top of your class you have excellent chances of landing a good job.
Good luck, I would reccomend a prep course for the LSAT, maybe Kaplan.
Is There Any Free Legal Representation In Los Angeles, Ca.?
My Brother Is Being Sued By A Creditor. He Has Been Unemployed For A While And Living Off His Savings. His Unemployment Case Is Pending. He Doesn'T Have The Money To Pay Anyone Right Now And There'S No One We Can Ask To Borrow The Money. Does Anyone In Los Angeles, California Know If There Are Any Public Agencies Or Anyone That Can Help In Cases Like This? Please Only Answer If You Know. Thank You.
Chances are slim to none that you'll get free representation for a civil suit by a creditor, but you can try the links below. Your brother should simply show up at the court, state his current financial situation, and the judge will take that into account. If he does NOT show up at court, the entire due amount plus interest and penalties will probably be awarded to the creditor. But if nothing else, one of the sites below will probably link you, at least by phone, to a lawyer who will tell you that.
Is This Legal Malpractice?
I Filed For Social Security Disability And Was Denied, But There Was Only 1 Reason Why I Was Denied, Because I Can Still Do The Same Work I Did In My Past Job. Then I Hired A Social Security Disability Law Firm.
My Claim Was Denied Again. The Explanation Of Determination Mentions My Aspergers And Adhd (Something I Disclosed To My Attorneys That I No Longer Have But Now Have Autistic, Anxiety, And Personality Disorders). It Says The Medical Record Shows I Am Able To Communicate, Act In My Own Interests, Adjust To Orindary Emotional Stresses, Get Along With Others, And Do My Usual Daily Activities Without Assistance. The Medical Record Also Shows That I Am Capable Of Performing Other Work That Might Only Require A Very Short, On-The-Job Training Period.
Based On The Fact It Went From 1 Reason I Was Denied To Many Reasons I Was Denied, Do You Think My Law Firm Committed Legal Malpractice?
sooooo you *had* Aspergers and ADHD...but magically got rid of them, and instead became Autistic, have anxiety, and "personality disorders?"
I dont think it works that way.
Me thinks someone is trying to screw over the system and they are seeing through it.
Oh, and no, it is not legal malpractice.