How is it possible to find a good lawyer for a self-defense case?

Status
Not open for further replies.

labnoti

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
1,892
I've had some limited experience with four criminal, felony-related cases in the past and I'm having a hard time making a connection between that experience and what might happen in a potential self-defense case. I'm hoping someone can point out what I'm missing.

We've all heard the pitches for self-defense insurance or concealed carry insurance or whatever you want to call it. The common theme is always that a self-defense case is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lawyers tell us this, and so do people that describe going through a trial. So it seems credible that it really will cost a fortune.

Where do you find lawyers that are worth that? I mean, we don't pay lawyers based on how much we want to stay out of prison. We pay them based on the value of their work. To pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would expect first of all that they're good at what they do and that they work many hundreds of hours and even have other staff working around the clock on our case. Who the heck are these lawyers that are so darn gold-plated? Where do they come from?

My experience with criminal defense attorneys that I mentioned is when one was needed, they were sought from the available local attorneys. In one case, it was a county outside a major city. The county seat was like 140,000. There were perhaps a dozen practices that were active in that county, but maybe only 1/3rd worked criminal cases. Most attorneys can make more money handling accident/injury cases, family law (divorces), corporate law, or just doing trusts and estate planning, so only a small portion of the total is willing to take criminal cases. Yes there are a lot of criminal cases, but I would bet the overwhelming majority of felony cases (not just DUI's and misdemanor possession) are handled by public defenders. So in this case, the defendants were OR'd and a couple of attorneys were found (was two defendants). They each took something like $1600 to $2000 (1990's money) to represent their client at the arraignment where they entered pleas of no contest. One of the attorneys had one big murder case with a trial in his entire career. I'm sure if these guys went to trial, they could rack up a lot more hours and what, maybe thirty or sixty thousand dollars. They had nothing that would ever make them worth $500,000 without more than 3 years worth of work.

Ok, so next case was another rural county. The county seat was about 5000 people. This county was small enough that an attorney was brought in from the next county over where the seat was 50,000. Guy was experienced and was campaigning for a seat as a judge. He took $3000 for the arraignment to put in a guilty plea. The case had some merit for a trial. It was a felon-in-possession firearm case, but the prior felony was actually a "wobbler" (possession of stolen property) and the defendant had not gone to prison, so it could have been argued the prior was a misdemeanor. The attorney decided it wasn't worth his while. He didn't even show up to enter a plea, but sent his assistant, recent law-school graduate. He went on to lose his campaign for judge. I can't see that loser being worth $500,000 in any trial.

Next case was a probation violation. The attorney took $2500 (21st Century money now) to negotiate a deal for community service. Again, a small-time lawyer from a very limited pool of local resources.

Last case was in the same county where the seat was 140,000. But this time out of county attorneys were sought out. The case was pitched to any of the firms in the big state capitol that advertised criminal practice. Not one of them was willing to take it. Not at any price. They simply couldn't be bothered to drive three-hours across a couple county lines. Firms in another big metro area in the state were also solicited. It would have been an air-travel deal. They all declined upfront without even talking price. A local, fresh graduate from a hotshot law school with zero experience took it and did it for dirt cheap.

I live in a different state than those cases but also in a rural area. I don't have any legal needs at the moment, but looking at the pool of local attorneys, they have no big trial experience. The only thing they've ever done is DUI's and possession of meth or weed and they just do plea bargains. There's been two somewhat big murder cases in the county in the last 15 years. One of them has yet to go to trial after years. The other one is going to be tried in another city three counties over because the defendant killed someone there too. Both will be public defender deals and they're basically open and shut with detailed confessions.

So suppose I was in a self-defense incident and found myself without prosecutorial favor. There are certainly no local attorneys for the two nearest counties that are worth super-high legal fees. Whether I had insurance or not, the only way I can see gaining any advantage with big money for a defense whether I paid for it cash or through one of these insurance programs is if the attorneys were willing to relocate or travel. Think about that. Most of the big-dollar lawyers are going to be in geographic areas where big-dollar cases happen regularly enough they can maintain their big-dollar practices. To get them to relocate or travel to wherever you might be is a piss poor value. Yeah, you might have to pay huge travel expenses, but what you're actually getting in terms of the value of legal representation is uncertain. Businesswise, those hot shot lawyers are better off waiting for a case to pop up in the market where they've set themselves up. They'll screw you for any inconvenience and you'll be their last priority.

So I was watching this video of a discussion of concealed carry insurance:



Two things that strike me is the reinforcement of the idea that a legal defense is going to cost you some immense amount of money -- probably many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars -- but no discussion of why it costs so much -- just that you'll be willing to pay it all to stay out of prison. (W-T-F?)

Then at 22:57, the lawyer explains that "you need to have confidence in this person [your attorney] that they're fully committed to your case, every single day of that period and that they're not just going through the motions. And I'm sad to say there are a lot of criminal defense attorneys out there who go through the motions. I mean they're not really committed to those cases. They take your retainer, they crank the handle, they do the minimal amount of work they have to do and if you get convicted, they're not going to prison."

He goes on to recommend against insurance policies that provide you with their own attorneys because they have an incentive to provide cheaper attorneys. He also advises against policies that only reimburse you if you're acquitted. And finally, he advises against policies that are more like pre-paid legal plans where a network of lawyers have negotiated flat-fees but can decline cases that will demand more than the plan will pay.

So my question is not about how you pay astronomical legal fees for a really good criminal defense, whether you do it through one of these carry insurance policies or through any other means. How do you find an attorney that could possibly be worth what everyone seems to be saying it's going to cost you? It seems reasonable before you even buy the insurance, to look at that question and try to answer it. Let's say I have $500K or $1M for my legal defense. Now, who do I go to?
 
Let me ask, is there anyone who is paying for carry insurance who knows the lawyer they would hire in the event of an incident? Have you been able to determine that they would have a reasonable probability of being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?

How many people are paying for carry insurance with the idea that a high-value lawyer will somehow just appear at the right time in the right place and take their case so long as they've arranged for the financial part to be taken care of?
 
Let me ask, is there anyone who is paying for carry insurance who knows the lawyer they would hire in the event of an incident? Have you been able to determine that they would have a reasonable probability of being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?

How many people are paying for carry insurance with the idea that a high-value lawyer will somehow just appear at the right time in the right place and take their case so long as they've arranged for the financial part to be taken care of?
I have, TTBOMA.
 
My father had many sports leagues,golf, softball, etc.
On his team's during the 70's and 80's were young laywers that went on to become prosecutors,federal judges etc.
In my experience from listening to these guys talk, it amazed me to hear them think they were above all.
I still see them from time to time but I have a hard time trusting any of them since I was privy to insider conversations.
When I was young it was said that children were to be seen and not heard,.
There is no way that I would feel comfortable that I'd have a fair anything if I ever had to go before one of them.
Another thing I learned, most cases are handled on the golf course or in a bar over dinner when it pertains to punishment.
It's all about the money and pride from where I come from.
Another thing I learned,when an attorney says to you,
"I don't handle stuff like that, but here's a number of someone who can"
You just got a polite brush off.
 
Last case was in the same county where the seat was 140,000. But this time out of county attorneys were sought out. The case was pitched to any of the firms in the big state capitol that advertised criminal practice. Not one of them was willing to take it. Not at any price. They simply couldn't be bothered to drive three-hours across a couple county lines. Firms in another big metro area in the state were also solicited. It would have been an air-travel deal. They all declined upfront without even talking price. A local, fresh graduate from a hotshot law school with zero experience took it and did it for dirt cheap.

That is how F. Lee Bailey became famous representing Sam Shepherd.


So I was watching this video of a discussion of concealed carry insurance:



He goes on to recommend against insurance policies that provide you with their own attorneys because they have an incentive to provide cheaper attorneys. He also advises against policies that only reimburse you if you're acquitted. And finally, he advises against policies that are more like pre-paid legal plans where a network of lawyers have negotiated flat-fees but can decline cases that will demand more than the plan will pay.


This is very good advice. One thing I know from unfortunate insurance claims is to read the fine print in the policy.

Insurance companies are in business to ONLY MAKE MONEY. BIG money. MASSIVE amounts of money. Don't believe me? Take at look at the top Fortune 500 companies.

They are not going to reduce their profits by hiring the lawyer best qualified to handle your case. They have a directory of lawyers that have agreed in advance to accept their payment schedule.

How do you find an attorney that could possibly be worth what everyone seems to be saying it's going to cost you? It seems reasonable before you even buy the insurance, to look at that question and try to answer it. Let's say I have $500K or $1M for my legal defense. Now, who do I go to?

Well it is even harder when you are still in jail because you can not post $500,000+ bail. (So much for 6th Amendment ).

Let me ask, is there anyone who is paying for carry insurance who knows the lawyer they would hire in the event of an incident? Have you been able to determine that they would have a reasonable probability of being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?

How many people are paying for carry insurance with the idea that a high-value lawyer will somehow just appear at the right time in the right place and take their case so long as they've arranged for the financial part to be taken care of?

My father had many sports leagues,golf, softball, etc.
On his team's during the 70's and 80's were young laywers that went on to become prosecutors,federal judges etc.
Another thing I learned, most cases are handled on the golf course or in a bar over dinner when it pertains to punishment.
It's all about the money and pride from where I come from.

Remember the scene at the beginning of the movie "A Few Good Men" where Tom Cruise cuts a plea bargain while practicing on the softball field and he had not read the case or met the defendants?

Our so-called criminal justice is badly broken. Most cases are handled by plea bargains. Community Service is the modern politically correct and legal version of chain gangs. Probation is about money as the defendant pays the County a monthly fee.

If more defendants would refuse plea bargains the Court system would quickly shut down. The excessive amount of laws are designed to generate revenue and feed our corrupt system.
 
Last edited:
What I've found is that much of the legal system is a network of good-old-guys/gals. Based on what I've actually done in 2 criminal and 1 civil cases:

Build a good solid relationship with a reasonably well connected attorney. Maybe one that does your estate planning. Put them on retainer or at least pay them each year to go over your estate, so you're their regular client. Become friends with them. Then when the SHTF have them select the very best attorney for that jurisdiction and that type of case for you.

In the two criminal cases involving me the charges were not only totally dropped but in one case the whole thing was totally expunged from the legal system. Not saying that was because my attorney and the judge were fishing buddies mind you, but I imagine it didn't hurt.
 
One thing I know from unfortunate insurance claims is to read the fine print in the policy.

Yes, because the large print giveth, and the fine print taketh away. All contracts have to be read as a whole, not as parts.
 
There is so much going on in that OP that I'm not even going to try to answer all of the questions. I will, however, point out some realities of the practice of law that might (hopefully) shed some light on things. I'm an attorney and have been licensed for 15+ years. I've worn a variety of legal hats over the years. Prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, divorce attorney, civil rights attorney, . . . . .

About 10 years ago, I was in private practice, and charging $160/hr for divorces and other matters for which I charged an hourly fee. If I were to go back to private practice now, I could charge $200 or more an hour. As my dad used to say, "You don't pay me for what I do. You pay me for what I know." I never took criminal matters at an hourly rate, and almost no attorney around here does. It's almost all done by flat rates and the lawyers do their best to get payment up front. You may not think it fair that I would charge someone $10K and make them pay me up front, but understand this: Once an attorney enters an appearance in a case, we cannot with draw unless a judge says we can. If I take a case for $10K, and the client pays me $2500, I have to keep moving forward until a judge lets me withdraw. If I don't file a motion to withdraw until the week before a jury trial, there's a good chance that motion will be denied, and I'll have to do the jury trial.

Also keep in mind that your case takes me away from others. Part of the fee (& remember we're talking about a flat fee) will be determined by how much time I expect to have to spend on your case, and what other stuff (my life, as well as other cases) that will interrupt. I almost got hired for a murder case one time. Anything on the scale of a murder case would have eaten up a ton of resources with my time, investigators, getting statements, having those transcribed, using the Freedom of Information Act and other resources to dig out the histories of witnesses, etc. . . . . I say I "almost got hired," because I quoted something like $40K, up front cash on the barrel head, to take the case. The family was not prepared to pay that much, and I was unwilling to put my entire life & practice on hold (which is what it would have required) for less. For an SD case, if the potential client has been charged, then the attorney has to assume that it's going to trial. The State apparently doesn't believe that it was SD, and there are obviously conflicting versions of events. You can't assume that the state will drop charges, and from the lawyer's chair at that point, it looks like the probability of working a plea deal is low. So SD cases, in their beginnings, look like trial cases, which are expensive. By comparison, some clients come in and basically say, "I got popped. I had a tail light out, a search waiver on file and I was alone in the car. It was my weed. Oh, yeah, and I confessed on video." That's a much cheaper case to take, because my whole role in that, as the lawyer, is to get my client the best deal that I can. There's no way that one's going to trial.

There's good news and there's bad news about the (perceived) good ol' boy network in the practice of law. I can't deny that LOTS of cases get resolved on the golf course and in the duck blind. Those are the times when the lawyers can be frank about their cases and clients, within the bounds of what we're allowed to say. I've often had defense counsel tell me "Look, I know my client is a a-hole, but that's not a crime. You can't prove charges A and B. You can probably prove C. Drop A and B and I'll see if he'll plead to C." Like it or not, that's a perfectly valid conversation for your lawyer to have. That GOB Network is how we lawyers keep current on who belongs on the Naughty List and who belongs on the Nice List. I guess that's the good news. The bad news is that it looks like we're doing special, underhanded favors for each other. We're not, at least I'm not, but I understand that some lawyers do, and I understand the appearance to those who are not involved in the practice of law.
 
My experience with lawyers is that they are very unorganized and put it off until the last second nearly every time. I had the distinct pleasure of being a PI/Process Server for hire for a number of years and got to deal with lawyers quite frequently. I am glad I have never needed their services.

For the most part I dealt with civil, divorce, estate lawyers and rarely criminal defense attorneys. Like lawyers, PIs can pick and choose their clients and criminal defense lawyers often had less profitable/more time consuming work.
 
I say I "almost got hired," because I quoted something like $40K, up front cash on the barrel head, to take the case. The family was not prepared to pay that much, and I was unwilling to put my entire life & practice on hold (which is what it would have required) for less.

I don't blame you for naming your price or for however high it was, but you admitted that it was the fact the trial would have put your entire life and practice on hold that set your price, not the value that you would have provided to the client, despite claiming that you get paid for what you know. Of course, you and every other private practice lawyer is free to set their price and aren't obligated to involuntary servitude, but what that means as a client is that I'm faced with paying lawyers for their inconvenience rather than their value. One thing this certainly means is that their price is no reflection of the value of their services whatsoever. That is exactly the experience I've consistently seen with many lawyers. I've frequently heard the, "I don't handle stuff like that, but here's a number of someone who can," brush-off even before any price was discussed.

In a self-defense case going to trial, your only choice is to find a lawyer who is willing to put their entire life and practice on hold for you, or to accept one that will just go through the motions, who are not really committed to your case. "They take your retainer, they crank the handle, they do the minimal amount of work they have to do and if you get convicted, they're not going to prison." Having a lot of money to persuade them to make the commitment is better than not having the money, but it is no assurance whatsoever of two equally critical criteria:

1. That they will even make the greatest effort they are capable of. They can take a huge fee and still do a half-assed job.
2. That they have the capability that you need. You only paid them to overcome their unwillingness to bother with your case. Your money hasn't done anything to assure they are capable.
 
....One thing this certainly means is that their price is no reflection of the value of their services whatsoever. That is exactly the experience I've consistently seen with many lawyers.....

And how do you think you can appraise the value of a lawyer's services? Are those services valuable only if you win? Well, I hate to break it to you, but not every client who thinks he's entitled to a win actually is. A lawyer takes his clients, and their circumstances, as he finds them; and sometimes the client is in the wrong. Some times a decent deal is, objectively, a win for the client, given all the facts; but clients in general don't accept that reality well. That's another reason for collecting fees for criminal work in advance.

So a conversation between a lawyer and his client overheard at the courthouse:

The client, annoyed with his lawyer, says, "Who do you think you are? Perry Mason?"

To which the lawyer replies, "I'm better than Perry Mason. All his clients were innocent."​

.... I've frequently heard the, "I don't handle stuff like that, but here's a number of someone who can," brush-off even before any price was discussed...

Which shows that you have an unreasonably jaundiced view of the subject. That's not a brush off. Lawyers handle certain types of cases and have the knowledge and experience to handle them. If a lawyer doesn't deal with your type of problem, he's not the lawyer you want handling your case. The lawyer is just being honest with you and trying to suggest a lawyer better able to meet your needs.

I'm not going to try to hire a plumber to rewire my house, even though a plumber and an electrician are both in the construction trades.

...Having a lot of money to persuade them to make the commitment is better than not having the money, but it is no assurance whatsoever of two equally critical criteria:

1. That they will even make the greatest effort they are capable of. They can take a huge fee and still do a half-assed job.
2. That they have the capability that you need. You only paid them to overcome their unwillingness to bother with your case. Your money hasn't done anything to assure they are capable.

Regrettably there are lawyers like that, but they are the exception, not the rule.

A lawyer works long and hard to qualify for admission to the Bar. He practices his profession out in the world under the scrutiny of other lawyers (both colleagues and opponents), regulators, and judges. Bar Associations have disciplinary committees to act on complaints, and in my experience they do take action. In many States lawyers who have had professional problems will be identified in Bar Association publications (which are now often available on-line in some States).

In every profession there are bad apples. That is the way of humanity.

But then there is a fundamental human reality: people, other than sociopaths and psychopaths, are generally concerned about their reputations, especially among their peers. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, judges, etc., who have studied and worked hard and long to achieve some level of success and prominence in their professions tend to care both about being professionally respected by their peers, and the usages and traditions of their professions. There is such a thing as [professional] conscience.
 
I don't want to disagree with you. My question is how to find it.

I've seen the gamut of lawyers in my short time here on earth, with the exception of my ex-wife's lawyer they've been outstanding human beings :)

As far as those in the field of firearm-related defense, I don't know if you have a local arms collectors sort of organization. Here in WA we have the WA Arms Collectors that publishes a monthly paper where several said attorneys advertise their services. One of those I've come to know and, while he's not on retainer, I keep his business card right behind my driver license. Lawyers like to shoot too.
 
I don't blame you for naming your price or for however high it was, but you admitted that it was the fact the trial would have put your entire life and practice on hold that set your price, not the value that you would have provided to the client, despite claiming that you get paid for what you know. Of course, you and every other private practice lawyer is free to set their price and aren't obligated to involuntary servitude, but what that means as a client is that I'm faced with paying lawyers for their inconvenience rather than their value.
First . . . . inconvenience? Seriously? When I say "put my life & practice on hold," that means spending time away from my family and turning away other paying business. If I'm going to have to turn away business for months or even years because a big part of my practice is dedicated to one case, I have to make back that money somewhere. I have bills like everyone else, and I do not consider food for my child to be a matter of "convenience."

Second, how do you know I valued it based on my "inconvenience" and not "the value provided to the client?" When a client paid me, apparently, they believed that I had delivered something of value. How do you know I didn't base it on my estimate of how much time, effort and skill the case would take, in light of a reasonable hourly fee?

Third, you are correct on one thing. I am free to set my own rates. We're talking about my skills and my time. Like any other person in America, I am free to charge whatever I want for that.

One thing this certainly means is that their price is no reflection of the value of their services whatsoever. That is exactly the experience I've consistently seen with many lawyers. I've frequently heard the, "I don't handle stuff like that, but here's a number of someone who can," brush-off even before any price was discussed.
If you think lawyers are too expensive, you're always free to represent yourself. People who put a premium on staying on the outside of the jail probably value our skills a little more highly. It seems to me that the free market determines whether our prices are warranted. Now, the question of whether a particular lawyer is worth what he or she charges is a separate matter entirely.

As far as "I don't handle stuff like that," some of it might be a brush-off, but really, it's also possible that the lawyer was just being honest. I got calls when I was in private practice about cases where I said the same thing. For example, I got a call about a medical malpractice case. I had to tell them I didn't handle those. Not because I didn't want the case, but because medical malpractice cases need a large bankroll on the front end. You have to be ready to hire doctors and nurses to comb through medical records, render opinions, etc., and none of that is free. I didn't have that bankroll, so I had to tell the person I didn't handle those, before we ever discussed a fee.

In a self-defense case going to trial, your only choice is to find a lawyer who is willing to put their entire life and practice on hold for you, or to accept one that will just go through the motions, who are not really committed to your case.
If you want a worker, any worker, to put his or her entire life on hold for you, you're going to have to pay for it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the practice of law is still a business for private attorneys and they have families to feed, just like the rest of us. I wouldn't ask a brick mason to dedicate months of his life to building me a wall without reasonable compensation. Why would I ask a lawyer to do so?
 
Frank Ettin said:
There is such a thing as [professional] conscience.
I don't want to disagree with you. My question is how to find it.
This may sound awful, but the question of: (1) whether a lawyer is worth the $ you pay; is separate from (2) whether he or she has a professional conscience. There are some very ethical lawyers who, sadly, aren't very good lawyers. Equally sadly, there are also some very skilled lawyers who aren't very ethical.

Finding a skilled, ethical lawyer really isn't that different from finding skilled, ethical workers in other professions. Talk to your friends and neighbors, make a few friends in the legal community and talk to them. There is one major difference with lawyers. For all of the complaints about lawyers, and unlike many professions, we actually publish our disciplinary records for all of the world to see. Here are a handful of examples.
Arkansas: https://attorneyinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/info/attorney/attorneysearch.aspx
Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/Content/Na...thanAttorney/GrievanceEthicsInfo1/default.htm
Florida: https://www.floridabar.org/public/acap/
Virginia: http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/disciplinary-system-actions
 
First . . . . inconvenience? Seriously? When I say "put my life & practice on hold," that means spending time away from my family and turning away other paying business. If I'm going to have to turn away business for months or even years...

Not a lawyer, but someone who charges hourly for my expertise. This is a concept often discussed as opportunity cost.

"The loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen."

I set my rates based on this. I often choose not to take on work that seems on the face to be a good thing (money!) because it means I cannot do other work I prefer, or have committed to already.

Unless really hard up for a lawyer, you are free to shop around until you find a rate or commitment you prefer.
 
Some ways to find a lawyer:

  1. A lawyer referral service. State Bar Associations and many County Bar Associations have referral services which can give you information on available lawyers in various practice areas.

  2. For firearm related matters, there are State centric and regional gun forums on which you can often find information on attorneys who handle such matters.

  3. The Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network has lists of lawyers who handle self defense cases in many States. It offers other benefits as well and is worth joining.

  4. Lawyers you know or use for other sorts of matters can often suggest criminal defense lawyers who could handle a self defense case.

  5. Take some classes. Instructors can often suggest criminal defense lawyers who could handle a self defense case. I especially recommend taking a class with Massad Ayoob, and also Andrew Branca's law of self defense classes (he has some on-line) are very worthwhile.

Some thoughts on selecting a lawyer:

  1. Since we're basically talking about a lawyer to handle a self defense case it's good to remember that a self defense case is fundamentally different from the usual criminal defense case. I'll let Attorney Lisa Steels explain.

    Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

    As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
    ...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

    In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
    ...

    ... Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult....

  2. So it would be a good idea to plan to interview any lawyer you think you might want to use if you need a lawyer to handle a future self defense case for you. Make an appointment with the lawyer and offer to pay his usual, hourly rate for his time. But some lawyer will offer a half-hour initial consultation for free.

  3. In the interview explain that you're interested in finding a lawyer you could call if you wind up needing legal assistance following a defensive use of force incident. Ask the lawyer about his experience handling self defense cases. Also ask about his fees and business policies. Ask any other questions you might have.

  4. Remember what Spats and I have said. The practice of law is the lawyer’s business (just as the practice of medicine is a physician's). It's how we earn money to support ourselves and our families.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top