Lawyers...ugh

[Monkeyleg]

With apologies to Ned Hamford and Bridgerunner (whom I'm certain don't operate this way), I'm disgusted with lawyers.

I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago about me getting a speeding ticket. 50 in a 25. 25 mph over is 4 points, and it will raise insurance rates.

I called three lawyers who specialize in traffic cases to see if they could get charges reduced so my insurance rates wouldn't go up.

The first one said it would be $400. The second one said $300. The third one said $300, but that I didn't need a lawyer, as I could go to court myself and try to cut a deal with the prosecutor. All three said they'd try to get the charges dismissed or reduced, if necessary by promising I'd go to a driving school, but they couldn't guarantee anything to me.

Today I called the court clerk's office to find out how much the ticket was. It was $163. She then said that I could take a four hour driving class, and the charges would be dismissed, and I'd only pay court costs of $138. No points, charges dismissed, no record, no insurance rate hike. I only needed to go to the clerk of courts office next week and sign up for one of the classes. She said they even had a payment plan if I couldn't come up with the $138 right away.

I said, "wait a minute. I had three attorneys tell me that they'd represent me in court and try to get charges reduced or dismissed by offering to have me take a driving class. Are you saying that you folks automatically offer this? And that the court costs will actually be less than the cost of the tickets, and I just pay the court costs with no fines from the tickets?"

"Yes," she said. "It's the law."

I thanked her profusely for saving me $300 to $400 on attorney fees, and $25 on the difference between the tickets and court costs, and said I'd see her next week.

I can't believe that the attorneys would try to pull something like this. Two of them told me that the prosecutor was a real hard case, and they just couldn't promise anything. One said he knew her well and could work on it.

What a bunch of lying dogs.

[wmenorr67]

The only others that I know who can be rewarded for lying are Recruiters for the military.

[AJ Dual]

The only others that I know who can be rewarded for lying are Recruiters for the military.

No.. Dick also remembers C0rey Gr@ff of the WG0 as well...

[TechMan]

The only others that I know who can be rewarded for lying are Recruiters for the military.

Wrong...Weather Forecasters.

[Monkeyleg]

Wrong...Weather Forecasters.

They're not liars, just bad guessers.

As for Corey, I'll never know what to make of him.

Is it customary for traffic attorneys, and attorneys in other areas of law, to conduct business like this? I've had patent and trademark attorneys help me, labor attorneys, and other specialists, and they were all top notch professionals.

[De Selby]

I didn't know anyone was making money being a traffic specialist.

Attorneys can't really promise an outcome - that's up to the court. 

But there are plenty of bums in the business.  It's like anything else.  Oddly for criminal matters the standard of practice is much higher, on average, among the low paid public service types than it is on the private side. 

I'd try for a public defender over most private shops if I needed a criminal defense.

[Monkeyleg]

Attorneys can't really promise an outcome - that's up to the court.

De Selby, the court clerk said it's the law here in the city to dismiss charges if the defendant takes the driving class. I'd say that's something an attorney could guarantee, although I would think an ethical one would tell that to a potential client rather than say, "it's $400 but I can't guarantee anything".

Maybe the magistrates know the scumball lawyers, and don't dismiss charges if they show up in the court.

More than likely, though, it will be my luck that the clerk didn't know what she was talking about.

[De Selby]

It's probably that they actually didn't know the law on that subject, and would charge you to simply discover it in that case.  There are always exceptions, so there is a little bit of prep (driving history, etc) you need to undertake for a client.  It's really not something they should take though; I wouldn't anyway.

[Ned Hamford]

Not my jurisdiction, but I think there are some misconceptions floating around.  As often happens, there seems to have been some confusing mingling between law and policy. 

A conditional dismissal, taking a driving course and paying court costs, isn't something guaranteed at law.  Its an ability the judge has and can exercise as a matter of policy.  Judges, especially the elected sort, tend towards appropriate leniency.  While a matter of practice, rather than actual law, many will see a defendant with a lawyer and figure he has suffered enough, is obviously taking it seriously and showing due deference to the court.  Added to that is the repeat player situation.  While a defendant will hopefully only see a judge once, the local lawyers may be seeing them weekly or monthly.  While familiarity may breed contempt, if its all smiles it may remain so.  I know for myself having good relationships with the court and prosecutors has gotten me some sweetheart deals [excepting once when it was a really noxious client]. 

So really it comes down to knowing the local system; as local lawyers really should.  Promises of results are something ethically barred, but expectations are often something massaged from the starting point.  If a lawyer said he expects a reduction of charges and then hands you a conditional dismissal, I imagine you would think him more clever than if he said 'yah, local policy is this but there is no guarantee of it.' If he got you anything less than that, you'd probably hate him forever and tell all your friends about that dirty so and so. 

Having way too much free time on my hands, there is my opinion.

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the explanation, Ned.

These lawyers are all from the city, and all promote themselves as being specialists in traffic cases (as well as others). I would assume that if they've handled speeding tickets before, they would know that this is the policy of the city.

The one who told me that I didn't need a lawyer was being the most honest, although he never explained this policy to me.

One of the attorneys is from a firm that does a ton of advertising for traffic cases. They claim it's their specialty. After I emailed them about my ticked, I must have received four calls from four different people trying to get me to hire them.

[Brad Johnson]

It's been my experience on mainstream procedural issues like traffic tickets and such that calling the court clerk will often get you an acceptable alternative.

Brad

[BridgeRunner]

This is one of the reasons I just couldn't get excited about small-time solo practice. Way too much trying to justify one's existence, not nearly enough looking out for the clients' best interests. 

I like e-discovery work better.  It's widely regarded as bottom of the barrel legal *expletive deleted*it work, but I enjoy it. And I'd rather spend my days as one of a hundred people working on document handling in defending against a major antitrust or pharmaceutical or medical device suit than be on my own, calling the shots, in the pointless scamming of money from some hapless consumer.

[MillCreek]

Make no bones about it: right now in a lot of areas of the country and a lot of areas of law, people are out there scrapping to get any legal work at all.  I have seen this from solo practitioners up to the big firms in downtown Seattle and elsewhere.  Case volumes seem to be down everywhere for everyone, just about. 

[SteveS]

Make no bones about it: right now in a lot of areas of the country and a lot of areas of law, people are out there scrapping to get any legal work at all.  I have seen this from solo practitioners up to the big firms in downtown Seattle and elsewhere.  Case volumes seem to be down everywhere for everyone, just about. 

Very true.  I don't do traffic tickets, but where I lived it is a little more nuanced, so it may be worthwhile to get an attorney.  Personally, I would feel bad taking money from someone that could have resolved their situation simply and easily.  I figure I should get paid to do something that they couldn't (or shouldn't) do on their own. 

As for court clerks, they are a mixed bag.  Some are decent, but many are horribly ignorant when it comes to the law and court rules. 

[Monkeyleg]

An update, for those who care.

I did have to go to court, as 25 over is at exactly the point where a court appearance is required. If it had been 24 over, I could have simply signed up for the driving class without a court appearance.

I was the first person called by the judge, and had a couple of statements ready should he ask. I said all of six words in my appearance. He read the offense ("50 in a 25 mile per hour zone") and immediately asked if I would prefer to take the three-hour driving class. I said, "yes I would." He then told me to have a seat, and the papers would be brought to me. I said, "thank you, sir."

I'm glad I didn't pay $400 to an attorney to handle that case of the century.