10617 Jones Street
Suite 201-B
Fairfax, VA 22030

Call For Free Consultation

Se Habla Español


Call Us

Should Someone Hire An Attorney Who Only Does DUI?

The DWI is a complicated area of law with a lot of little elements that require a lot of evidence from the government. It is somewhat specialized, but it is similar enough to criminal law and other traffic cases that a client could get an attorney who did not exclusively do DUIs. Hiring this person would be just as good as hiring someone who exclusively did DWIs.

A person who exclusively does DWIs is basically saying that he focuses on the law and science of DWI only. Thusly, he knows what he is talking about, and he would be flawless in this area.

My personal view is that someone would not have to exclusively do DWIs to be flawless in a DWI. Someone who does a lot of jury trials in larger criminal cases can be just as effective in a DWI, simply because they have jury trial practice.

An attorney with a lot of drug work would be very good with the chemical and the science side, as well. This could be useful in DWIs. Being able to do a few things rounds out an attorney. However, I am not necessarily saying that a client should look for someone who was rounded out with civil practice, criminal practice, and administrative practice. Maybe this would be too round.

As far as criminal work goes, I would not say that hiring someone specialized in DWI is essential. This is simply because there are lots of criminal defense attorneys who are very good in DWI, without specializing.

Should Someone Consider An Attorney Who Gives A Guarantee?

Guarantees in criminal defense work are almost always unethical. An attorney cannot promise someone that they would get a certain result. They would really have to be able to deliver on a promise, and in criminal work, no one can deliver on a promise like that.

The end result is not up to the defense attorney; it is up to the judge. The prosecution often influences it, as well. The client needs to be very wary about promises. Clients like getting promises, and they almost beg attorneys for promises. Alternately, they condition their hiring of an attorney on a promise for a result.

Attorneys must shy away from it and say that they cannot give those results. If the only reason the client is considering hiring them is to achieve a particular result, then the client cannot hire them. Clients do not like this, but promises cannot be adequately delivered. It’s unethical.

Is It A Good Idea To Hire An Attorney Who Would Be Aggressive All The Time?

No, it would not be a good idea to get a lawyer who only works with aggression. The client should want someone who can develop intelligent strategies and intelligent defenses. These might sometimes involve aggressive representation and going after the government’s case with zeal.

Sometimes, however, it takes a soft touch. If an attorney was constantly in high gear, using an aggressive approach, then the people in the courthouse would remember this. Their relationships with that lawyer would not be as good.

Quite often, the relationship between the other side and the lawyer is essential to achieve good results for his clients. Thusly, if the lawyer had a very bad demeanor and was resented by the prosecutors, then his only recourse at that point would be aggression.

Therefore, the attorney must be a very aggressive litigator. Sometimes, however, the person would just need a person who had a very good relationship with the court and the prosecutors. This way, he could get what the client wanted.

This often happens. A young attorney with just 5 years in practice has a case against another attorney with 25 years in a practice. They both enter court prepared, with good arguments and great organization.

In most cases, the older attorney would have the respect when they presented their arguments to the judge. Therefore, he would be able to get the judge to do what he wanted. Over the years, the older attorney would have created credibility in what he says. Thusly, when that attorney tells the judge that something is the law and then quotes the law, then the judge would be more likely to believe it than if that young attorney clamed something was the law and then stated the law.

To compensate for this, a younger attorney must be more prepared, more organized, and more amazing than the older attorney. This way, they can have equal footing. Of course, this is important because the older one would not have always used the aggressive approach. He would have developed credibility and friendship to round out the court’s ability to trust him.

How Does An Attorney Use Their Time For The Case?

During a DWI case, a good attorney spends ample amounts of time finding out what the most important things were for the client. They discover all of the facts surrounding the case, and they find out enough information to challenge the science surrounding the government’s case.

They would take the time to look into any government-provided documentation, and they would spend time looking for other sources of information to help their client win. These could include ambulance records, police reports, videos, 911 calls, or witnesses who may have some knowledge. They will discover this and become familiar with it so they can use it in the case.

Next, they would decide the best way to present the case. This means they would look into the law and make sure they had everything to put on a good trial. They would be constantly evaluating whether or not the court and the prosecutor, in combination, were good choices for their client. This way, they would be able to move the case if they needed to. Furthermore, they would move the case to a later date if the evidence they needed to collect could not be collected swiftly.

On the court date, the attorney would negotiate for their client and evaluate any appropriate angles. They would try to negotiate good results. Finally, if it came down to it, they would do a trial, meaning they would sit, evaluate, and challenge the government’s evidence.

They would present arguments to try to get the court to dismiss all or a portion of the case. This way, when the case was over, they would make sure their client understood what happened. As the case went on, they would also make sure their client and other important people in the case knew what was going on.

Many things occur in a DWI case beyond just the trial. Consider the time leading up to the trial, during the trial, and then after the trial. I would suggest that the attorney should even be responsible for making sure that their client carried out the imposed sentences properly. Those can be very confusing and often missed in court when everything is happening.

For example, the person may not realize the judge just gave him 10 instructions. Perhaps he only remembered 3 or 4. Missing some of them could put him in trouble again.

The lawyer can often set traps for the government, hoping they would fall into them. However, sometimes the clients think that the lawyer did not do anything. By defusing the lawyer, by changing the lawyer, or by firing the lawyer, he allows all those traps to fail. The client would never even know.

For more information on Choosing An Attorney For DUI, a free initial consultation is your next best step. Get the information and legal answers you’re seeking by calling (703) 691- 4366 today.

Free Initial Consultation Get Help Now

Charged With A DWI in Virginia?

Free Download