The Difference
What is the difference between an average attorney and a DUI attorney, both doing a DUI case? Well let's look at "Bob's" case.
Bob saw me for a DUI two months ago. The prosecutor offered supervision for a DUI, which I rejected. I argued that the stop was bad because it was likely that the officer could not make the observations which he claimed he made, and the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to leaving the scene (not a DUI) and threw out the suspension. An average lawyer would have taken the no conviction supervision offer.
Yesterday Bob got another DUI.
Here's the difference.
If Bob hired the average attorney for the first DUI, he has real problems. First he can't use supervison on the second DUI because you only can get one supervision. So if Bob loses his case and gets a conviction his license is revoked. He can avoid a revocation by getting the charges reduced to reckless driving, but he still has a suspension problem. Because his last DUI was less than 5 years ago he will be suspended for one year if he takes the breathalyzer and fails. If he refused to take the breathalyzer his license is suspended for three years. Remember that drivers who have had a DUI within the past five years can't get judicial driving permits, or restricted driving permits.
Because Bob hired me for the first DUI, he can still get supervision because he didn't use it on his first. Because there was NO DUI, he can qualify for a judicial driving permit. Bob will be happy, and his nosey neighbors will wonder how Bob does it?
Remember, every case is different and your results may vary.
Ray Flavin
