Almost daily, as I listen to criminal attorneys describe their success, I question whether the attorneys are really helping their criminal clients.  Take the following scenario as an example:

A 23 year old client comes into an attorney’s office with a court date for a DUI.  The client presents a video capturing the vehicle stop to the attorney; and they view it together.  The video shows the client weaving a little within his lane.  He never leaves the lane, or even touches the line on the roadway.  The video also shows the client performing very well on the field sobriety tests.  Then, the client tells the attorney he blew a .17 on the breathalyzer machine.

With that factual scenario in mind, what is the first thing that an experienced attorney should reveal to the client?  The very first thing!  

Most experienced attorneys are going to explain that they can beat the case.  Clearly the case can be won.  It might be won on the motion to suppress the stop, since there was insufficient evidence to warrant a stop of the vehicle.  If might be won on the motion to suppress the breathalyzer results, because there was insufficient evidence to justify the arrest of the client.  Maybe it will be won because the officer was ill-trained to recognize clues indicating impairment.  The issue is not whether, as the attorney, you can win the case, but what do you tell the client first. 

Other attorneys will advise the client that he should not have agreed to provide a breath sample, because without the breath sample, the case would be an easy win.  Still other attorneys might focus on the status of the client’s license, and what the attorney will do save the client’s driving privileges.

                 However, there is really only one thing that I think an attorney should tell the client after viewing the video: YOU ARE AN ALCOHOLIC.  Let us look at the evidence.  A 23 year old young man is blowing twice the legal limit at .17, and is able to drive his car with no indications that he is impaired.  He is able to perform field sobriety tests with easy, all while he is .17.  He is an alcoholic.  He may be a functioning alcoholic, but he is an alcoholic nonetheless.  And while I am as confident as any experienced attorney that I will win the case, because the facts are in my favor, I do not serve the client by beating the case and NOT helping him get help for his alcohol issues. 

                As an experienced attorney, who has often has to try the third DUI case, because the offer is now unpalatable, OR worse who has to try the vehicular manslaughter case because the client thought he could make it home, it pains me to see the criminal history of clients who had multiple chances to veer from the destructive course they were on.  I often wonder did any of these prior attorneys see this inevitable catastrophe.  Did the attorney have any insight into what was coming when they plead them out to reckless driving five years ago, and never mentioned the fact that .17 indicated chemical dependency?  Maybe it was not as important as celebrating the victory over the prosecutor at the bar that afternoon.  

Surely, wisdom is an undervalued virtue. 

 DUI Lawyer in Lawrenceville, DUI Attorneys Gwinnett County