Hopefully, I'll never require the services of counsel other than real estate and will.
In need of a trustworthy criminal lawyer
- Thread starter somebrownguy
- Start date
I don't know where your charge is, but it is important to get a lawyer who spends a lot of time at that court and knows the crowns well.
The farther you get from Toronto the more important this is.
The first thing you should do is go to a Library, get a copy of Marten's CC and look up your charges. It will give you an idea of whether you actually do have a case worth arguing. Then you can find your lawyer and now armed with a modicum of information discuss your options intelligently.
Pooning is the ONE THING that unites us all. Doctors, Brick Layers, Lawyers, Cabinet Makers, Engineers, Roofers, Accountants, Auto Mechanics, IT Dudes, Dentists, Teachers, Gov't Workers, you name it - we're all here. United in the uncontrolable desire to spread a beautiful woman's legs and enjoy something that lasts about 7 seconds. We'll go to the end of the world for those 7 seconds and have done so on numerous occassions.
TERB is probably the greatest single resource for one stop shopping for everything from where to get your Transmission fixed to hiring a criminal lawyer.
7 seconds? Really? (and yeah, I know you mean the climax)... I agree with you though.
Oagre, I'm glad you said this cuz I know someone who used Greenspan and paid a fortune for an alleged domestic battery/assault charge handled by his associate, and he had to plead to a lesser charge which stays on the record.
What do you mean by 'dealing out to the Crown'? Plea bargains that compromise the client's position rather than optimizing it?
Pretty much. The issue with dumptrucks is that they do not really figure out if a client has a viable defence or not. They just ditch the client with a plea bargain and collect the fee as quickly as possible.
1. Accept that you need help and are looking for services that you cannot provide for yourself.
2. Get a referral from someone who a) previously used a criminal lawyer and b) liked him.
3. Don’t be a dick.
Note that all three points above are bloody obvious.
Point 1 is why we are all on TERB, right?
Obviously, trustworthiness is a good thing to look for in a lawyer. However, when it’s the first word out of your mouth, you are basically saying that a) you yourself are not trustworthy and b) you will be suspicious of everything the lawyer says. See point 3 above.
LSUC’s lawyer referral service is useless. It just cycles through lawyers who signed up and does not say anything about quality.
Don’t get advice from people who have not used a criminal lawyer, but dislike them anyway. The inverse of point 2 above.
Bryant’s lawyer was Marie Heinen. Brillant, hard working, does not seek the limelight. Excellent choice.
It does not matter whether the charges are big or small. Ask yourself if they are a big deal _to you_ and get a lawyer who will act accordingly.
Don’t bother with Martin’s. It will describe the offence to you but not give you any idea about potential defences. If you start citing it to your lawyer, forcing him to correct your irrelevant misunderstandings, you will be a pain in the ass. See points 1 and 3 above. It's your lawyer's job to explain things to you. If, after your initial interview, you do not have a firm understanding of the situation you are in (even if it's not what you want to hear), go elsewhere.
oagre is right on about dumptruckery.
2. Get a referral from someone who a) previously used a criminal lawyer and b) liked him.
3. Don’t be a dick.
Note that all three points above are bloody obvious.
Point 1 is why we are all on TERB, right?
Obviously, trustworthiness is a good thing to look for in a lawyer. However, when it’s the first word out of your mouth, you are basically saying that a) you yourself are not trustworthy and b) you will be suspicious of everything the lawyer says. See point 3 above.
LSUC’s lawyer referral service is useless. It just cycles through lawyers who signed up and does not say anything about quality.
Don’t get advice from people who have not used a criminal lawyer, but dislike them anyway. The inverse of point 2 above.
Bryant’s lawyer was Marie Heinen. Brillant, hard working, does not seek the limelight. Excellent choice.
It does not matter whether the charges are big or small. Ask yourself if they are a big deal _to you_ and get a lawyer who will act accordingly.
Don’t bother with Martin’s. It will describe the offence to you but not give you any idea about potential defences. If you start citing it to your lawyer, forcing him to correct your irrelevant misunderstandings, you will be a pain in the ass. See points 1 and 3 above. It's your lawyer's job to explain things to you. If, after your initial interview, you do not have a firm understanding of the situation you are in (even if it's not what you want to hear), go elsewhere.
oagre is right on about dumptruckery.
Last edited:
Interesting point about Martin's. I personally do not mind discussing a client's ideas once or twice, even if they are stupid. That's what I am paid to do. However, there are lines that should not be crossed.
First, do not think your best friend's cousin, Buddy is smarter than your lawyer. Even if Buddy tells you about a way he is 100% sure you can beat the charge and tells you any other lawyer would go with it. If your lawyer tells you the idea won't work, 95% sure it won't. There is a 5% chance the lawyer is a little too conservative in his approach or the trial judge you will end up with will have a different view of the law. But don't bet on it.
There is NOTHING that pisses a lawyer off more than a client who gets "legal advice" from his buddies and relatives and does not listen to the lawyer. The lawyer will find this annoying and lose respect for you.
If you do not think the lawyer is on the same page as you, by all means see another lawyer behind Lawyer #1's back. Lawyer #2 will usually tell you exactly what Lawyer #1 did and then you can go back to Lawyer #1 with more confidence.
Remember that your smart ideas about how to beat the charge may have taken you a couple of hours to work out, but judges and lawyers see EXACTLY the same ideas about beating this type of charge all the time. Accused usually all come up with the same ideas and the judges know them all already. In fact, the judge will be sitting there waiting to see which of the 6 or 7 most popular defences your lawyer will present. Unless your lawyer endorses your defence, it's probably not going to be a winner.
First, do not think your best friend's cousin, Buddy is smarter than your lawyer. Even if Buddy tells you about a way he is 100% sure you can beat the charge and tells you any other lawyer would go with it. If your lawyer tells you the idea won't work, 95% sure it won't. There is a 5% chance the lawyer is a little too conservative in his approach or the trial judge you will end up with will have a different view of the law. But don't bet on it.
There is NOTHING that pisses a lawyer off more than a client who gets "legal advice" from his buddies and relatives and does not listen to the lawyer. The lawyer will find this annoying and lose respect for you.
If you do not think the lawyer is on the same page as you, by all means see another lawyer behind Lawyer #1's back. Lawyer #2 will usually tell you exactly what Lawyer #1 did and then you can go back to Lawyer #1 with more confidence.
Remember that your smart ideas about how to beat the charge may have taken you a couple of hours to work out, but judges and lawyers see EXACTLY the same ideas about beating this type of charge all the time. Accused usually all come up with the same ideas and the judges know them all already. In fact, the judge will be sitting there waiting to see which of the 6 or 7 most popular defences your lawyer will present. Unless your lawyer endorses your defence, it's probably not going to be a winner.
I only mention Martin's because if I remember correctly there are examples given of viable defences that the courts will recognize. In this instance, OP seems to think he has an argument worth presenting, my advice to visit Martin's would soon put any misapprehensions on his part into the proper light. For good or bad.
Oagre makes a good point about intelligent clients willing to take an active role in their own defense, to a point, then the client must defer and let his attorney earn his fee.
Oagre makes a good point about intelligent clients willing to take an active role in their own defense, to a point, then the client must defer and let his attorney earn his fee.
Exclamation / explanation by my client to cops after being caught with drugs: "I don't use it; I just sell the stuff!!!"
