New Concern for Defendants in technology based criminal cases.
03/13/2008It has come to the attention of our office from both potential clients and former clients of attorneys, particularly a few in Ohio, using briefs, arguments, motions and other documents produced by our office, repackaging as their own and inducing clients to pay them large retainers to represent them. Just like any other profession, clients have to be constantly on alert to distinguish real experience from claimed experience. As an example, some attorneys pose as a jack of all trades by signing on with lead generating programs while claiming to focus their practice solely on the defense of technologically and legally complex cases such as the ones that Dean Boland is known for successfully representing clients on across the country.
Because of the complexity, both legally and technologically, of defending technology based criminal cases, merely copying other legal documents and repackaging is insufficient to acquaint an attorney with all the varied issues necessary to properly defend these types of cases.
Our website has provided an information sheet for nearly two years containing questions for potential clients to ask any attorneys they are considering hiring. Of course, we have tracked that many attorneys have been downloading this list as well perhaps to prepare ahead of time for those eventual calls.
The bottom line is to compare information available online, call potential attorneys and consider their relative expertise.
The change in the law brought on by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2002 sparked the revolution in the defense of these types of technology based criminal cases. If the attorney you are considering has no experience handling these cases, writing articles, teaching seminars, law school courses, etc. prior to that date, that should be a red flag. Many of the business minded counsel entering this area magically spawned such claimed expertise only since 2002. Review our site and note that for more than a decade, Dean Boland has been teaching lawyers, judges, prosecutors and the public about technology and law issues. His column in the Cleveland Bar Journal on technology and the law which he founded in 1996 is read monthly by over 5000 attorneys.
He authored an Op-Ed piece in 2001 correctly predicting the current change in the law that came about from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 Free Speech Coalition case.
He is a sought after speaker at seminars around the country since 1996 specifically speaking on technology and law issues.
In addition, he is one of the few attorneys in the country who is a court-qualified computer and digital imaging expert.
A call to our office can put clients in touch with other lawyers with whom we have worked that can provide you the background you need to make an informed choice in this most important of decisions.
