Attorney Matthews Bark | “Law Schools Adjust To Lower Enrollments”

Source    : Chicago Tribune
By           : Ameet Sachdev, Chicago Tribune
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Criminal Defense Attorney

Attorney Matthews R Bark
Attorney Matthews R Bark

Amy Cramer, who finished law school in 2011, was one of the fortunate ones, if you define fortunate as finding a temporary job as an employee benefits consultant for $18 an hour soon after graduation.More than 14 percent of her classmates at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago had not found any job nine months after graduation. Cramer recently joined the ranks of unemployed lawyers when her contract job ended in October.

“I love the law, but being unemployed is very tough on the psyche,” said Cramer, 28. “I don’t know if it’s bad luck or something I’m doing wrong. There’s so much self-doubt in the process.” The job market has been tough for law school graduates for several years. But law schools were slow to react to changing market conditions. They kept growing enrollments, despite fewer jobs. In 2010, a record of more than 52,000 students started law school, according to data compiled by the American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools. Since then, enrollments have fallen nationally amid a dwindling pool of applicants.

Would-be lawyers are thinking twice about spending $40,000 to $50,000 a year in private school tuition to study for a profession that isn’t creating enough new jobs to match the supply of graduates every year. The first to reduce their enrollments were lower-tier schools, according to published reports. But now the pain is spreading up the ranks. National admissions data for the entering Class of 2013 are being compiled by the American Bar Association, but a survey of law schools in Illinois shows sharp declines in enrollment.At Loyola University Chicago, the entering Class of 2013 was one-fourth smaller than the 2012 class. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign enrolled 170 students, which was 28, or 14 percent, fewer than a year ago.

Even elite schools can’t escape the trends. Northwestern University, No. 12 in U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges rankings, trimmed its 2013 entering class of three-year law students to 177, or 14.5 percent, from 207 the year before. Unless law schools relax their admissions standards, enrollments may continue to shrink, judging by the numbers of people considering getting a Juris Doctor degree. The Law School Admission Council reported that 33,673 people took the law school entrance exam, known as the LSAT, in October, down nearly 11 percent from the same test month last year. The exam is administered four times a year.

The would-be professionals turning away from law school are not fleeing in any obvious direction. For example, interest in graduate business schools waned after 2009 amid a tepid recovery and uncertain job prospects. Applications for Master of Business Administration programs rebounded this year, but much of the increase came from overseas demand, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council.In the face of declining enrollments, the heads of law schools confront financial pressures that many have never dealt with. Schools are forgoing millions of dollars in tuition revenue by shrinking their enrollments. To balance their budgets, some deans have reduced faculty and staff through layoffs and attrition.

At the same time, they are spending limited resources to attract more students and find more jobs for their graduates. They are throwing themselves into curriculum reform and cajoling alums to hire students for either internships or full-time positions.”We’re in a longer-term correction in terms of jobs,” said Harold Krent, dean of the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. “Technology changes, globalization trends, corporate pressures on law firms and tax issues for state governments all have contributed. We have to ensure we continue to be as relevant as we can.”

IIT Chicago-Kent received 2,661 applications for its 2013 entering class, down 31 percent from 2010, when it received 3,854.Law schools face a difficult choice when the applicant pool shrinks. They can keep enrollment steady by loosening admissions standards, but the strategy could endanger their status in the influential rankings by U.S. News & World Report. Or they can preserve their academic credentials, accept fewer students and find ways to make up the revenue shortfall.

In 2012, Krent trimmed IIT Chicago-Kent’s first-year enrollment by 7 percent, from 308 full- and part-time students to 286, and the same number of students matriculated this year. From 2010 to 2013, the school has registered a modest decline in its median LSAT score, to 158 from 161, out of a possible score of 180.Krent said it hasn’t been easy balancing the goals of admitting students who can succeed in law school and pass the bar exam and maintaining revenue. Law school tuition also supports the undergraduate and graduate programs at the Illinois Institute of Technology. “Some people at the university would prefer if we guarantee 300 seats,” Krent said. David Yellen, Loyola’s law dean, said university officials supported his decision to cut the first-year class, agreeing to accept less revenue from the law school.

Source :,0,5070395.story


Criminal Defense Attorney | “Court Of Appeal Judges Say 35-year Minimum Sentence For Adrian Bayley Was Fair”

Source    :
By            : Paul Anderson – Herald Sun
Category : Matthews R Bark –Criminal Defense AttorneyAttorney Matthews R Bark

Adrian Bailey  SentancingADRIAN Bayley’s life sentence with a 35-year minimum term for the rape and murder of Jill Meagher was fair because features of the crime were “particularly callous” and “warranted condign punishment,” three Court of Appeal judges said today.

“The applicant was a violent sexual predator who killed his victim,” the justices said in their judgment. Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justices Marcia Neave and Paul Coghlan today released the reasons for their decision to refuse Bayley’s leave to appeal the length of his minimum term last month. “This was a case where the applicant was sentenced to one of the sternest sentences for this type of offending,” the justices stated.

“At the time of the attack the applicant was on parole. He was also on bail having been convicted of an unprovoked assault on a male passer-by and subsequently having appealed to the County Court on the sentence imposed in the Magistrates’ Court of three months’ jail.” After Bayley pleaded guilty to raping and murdering Ms Meagher, Justice Geoffrey Nettle threw the book at him and sentenced him to life with a 35-year minimum. Bayley appealed against the sentence, initially on the single ground that Justice Nettle made a mistake by inferring he intended to kill Ms Meagher because she would have called the police or for some form of perverted pleasure. “And relying on those inferences to find that in terms of moral culpability the applicant’s killing of the deceased ranks among the worst kinds conceivable,” the judgement stated. Bayley added another ground: that Justice Nettle erred in setting the 35-year minimum “by placing excessive weight on the need for community protection”.

In their judgment, the justices said: “The applicant submitted that the inference that he intended to kill Ms Meagher was not open; that the inference that he derived some form of perverted pleasure from killing her was not open; and the inference that he intended to kill Ms Meagher in order to avoid her calling the police was not open. “The Crown argued on the plea that the offending was a reckless killing. Eventually, the applicant conceded during the plea that whether the killing was intentional or reckless would not make a difference. “The applicant acknowledged that his prior criminal record revealed a ‘shocking history of gratuitous violence inflicted upon vulnerable women’.

“However, he submitted that his history could not give rise to an inference adverse to him; namely that he killed Ms Meagher because he derived some form of perverted pleasure from killing her.

“The point was made that this particular motivation was not asserted by the Crown nor discussed on the plea.”

The justices mentioned facts including the viciousness of the “stranger rape”, the fact Bayley was a large man and Ms Meagher a smaller woman, the fact he killed her to stop her reporting the rape to police and his “appalling history of violent offending “against individuals smaller and weaker than him – most of who were women”.

SOurce ::

Matthews R Bark -Criminal Defense Attorney | “The Unsettled HealthCare Law”

Source     :
By             : Doyle McManus
Category : Matthews R Bark –Criminal Defense AttorneyOrlando Drug Defense Attorney

Matthews R Bark- Criminal-Defense-Attorney
Matthews R Bark- Criminal-Defense-Attorney

Ever since Obamacare’s stormy passage in early 2011, Democrats have been waiting anxiously for the program to go into effect and hoping that a dose of reality would calm the partisan battles over the health insurance plan. Once everything was up and running, they hoped, skeptical Americans would see that Obamacare was a good idea all along — and reward the party that brought it to them. That’s looking unlikely, at least in the short run. Last week’s glitch-filled rollout of Obamacare’s health exchange websites, combined with Republicans’ furious refusal to accept the program as what President Obama calls “settled law,” confirmed something political strategists in both parties had already predicted: The war over Obamacare is far from over.

“It’s unlikely that the Affordable Care Act will be widely popular until people have real experience with it — until it becomes the new normal,” a leading Democratic strategist told me. “We’re talking about years, not weeks or months.” Nobody expected the launch of a fleet of balky websites to make an immediate difference to perceptions of the health insurance plan, not even with endorsements from icons like Lady Gaga, who managed to get the main website address wrong in her promotional tweet. Still, the opening-day problems and the slow pace of applications for health insurance were not encouraging signs. More important, in the long run, was the Republican Party’s reaffirmation — spurred by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other tea party legislators — that repealing, defunding or dismantling the program remains one of its top goals.

The tea party caucus has succeeded in making resistance to Obamacare a litmus test for Republicans, and as a result, it’s likely that next year’s congressional election will be fought in large part over the health insurance program. The fate of Obamacare may hang in the balance. “The 2014 election will be the Gettysburg of this struggle — the deciding battle, one way or the other,” predicted Robert J. Blendon of Harvard’s School of Public Health. In the current Congress, the Senate’s Democratic majority has stopped the Republican-led House of Representatives from defunding or delaying Obamacare’s implementation. But if Republicans take control of the Senate next year — a prospect currently rated as a tossup — only Obama’s veto will stand in their way.

And even by election day in 2016, Obamacare may still be a work in progress. “If you give it three, four, five years, every experience we have is that public support will be there,” Blendon said. “But you have to give it that much time.” Meanwhile, Republicans will have every incentive to attack the program’s shortcomings. “The real problem here is not managerial; many programs take years to roll out,” he said. “The real issue is political. Programs don’t do well if one party doesn’t support it and public opinion isn’t for it.” As for Obamacare, public opinion has settled into skepticism. A Fox News poll released last week, after the websites’ rollout, found that 54% of voters favor repealing all or part of the law, while 41% want to preserve or expand it — not much different from earlier findings.

The poll found that only 30% of voters want to repeal the entire law — but among Republicans, that number swells to 53%, and among tea party supporters, 71%. That helps explain GOP legislators’ opposition. What could change public attitudes? “There could be movement either way, depending on whether people think the program turns out better or worse than they expected,” Blendon said. If more employers drop retirees and spouses from insurance coverage because Obamacare is available, for example, “you could see a huge backlash,” he said. Republicans may have a built-in advantage in that debate: They can blame any bad news about healthcare on Obamacare, whether the program is at fault or not. “If rates are going up, Republicans will say that’s because of Obamacare, even though it’s not true,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. “If companies are cutting back, Republicans will say that’s because of Obamacare.”

But it will also matter what remedy Republicans propose. In last week’s Fox News poll, most voters said they opposed defunding Obamacare — although two-thirds of GOP voters said they supported the idea. A one-year delay in implementing Obamacare, on the other hand, is a broadly popular idea, supported by 57% of all voters, including 80% of Republicans. So don’t expect the war over Obamacare to be over any time soon. Instead, expect Republicans of every stripe to continue their guerrilla campaign against the program through the 2014 congressional election, and perhaps the 2016 presidential election as well.

Expect more furious, partisan debate over every step of implementation, with dueling experts from each side. Expect smart Republicans to focus on demands to delay or cancel the penalties on individuals for failing to sign up, the law’s least popular provision. That might sound like a minor change, but it could undermine the program fatally. The president will continue to insist that Obamacare is “settled law.” But a law is only fully settled once both parties accept its permanence, and Obamacare is a long way from there.

Source :,0,5425437.column

Criminal Defense Attorney Matthews R Bark | “Criminal Justice: It’s About Time Robert De Niro Turned To Television”

Source       :  Contactmusic
By               : Michael West 
Category  : Criminal Defense Attorney Matthews R BarkOrlando Drug Defense Attorney


Robert De Niro has been hired to replace James Gandolfini in a new HBO mini-series Criminal Justice, following the death of The Sopranos star in June. De Niro will play a New York lawyer in the show, which Gandolfini had been developing based on the 2008 BBC series by Peter Moffat. Following the actor’s sudden death in Rome, it initially appeared as though HBO had put the project on the backburner, though, according to, the team were keen to continue in Gandolfini’s honor.

Deadline Hollywood’s TV Editor Nellie Andreeva said the network wanted “a great actor whom Gandolfini would have wanted for the role and who would honour Gandolfini’s memory with his performance,” adding, “I hear their list consisted of one name only, Robert De Niro, who responded and came on board.” Still one of the finest actors in the world with the right material, De Niro has been wasted on poor scripts and throwaway comedies in recent years, though with television now the primary location for high quality scripted drama, the 65-year-old could thrive at HBO.

In the seven hour mini-series, his character Jack Stone takes on a case of a Pakistani (played by British star Riz Ahmed) who is accused of murdering a girl on New York’s Upper West Side. The original series saw each episode tracking a separate case, though the U.S. team appear to be wisely drawing out the story to develop character and plot. It should be brilliant. We can already imagine the opening shot of De Niro, clad in a heavy winter coat, trotting up the stairs of some grand courthouse in Manhattan as the snow falls on the sidewalk. He gets inside, dusts of the flakes…and, ok, you get the picture. Steven Zaillian, who has been working on the project for some time, will direct the first hour.

2014 is shaping up to be a powerful year for HBO, with True Detectives also set to premiere in January. The series stars Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson as two detectives who for a serial killer in Louisiana across seventeen years. Another show, The Leftovers, from Damon Lindelof and starring Justin Theroux, takes place in the wake of a global Rapture and centers on the people who didn’t make the cut and are left behind in a suburban community. Niro is the perfect replacement for James Gandolfini on HBO’s ‘Criminal Justice.’

Attorney Matthews R Bark | “Benefits Of Hiring An Experienced Attorney”

Source        :
By              : Admin – Press Release
Category   : Attorney Matthews R Bark


The benefits of hiring an experienced attorney are many. In fact, having a knowledgeable law practitioner on your side in times of crisis or whenever the need for legal assistance arises can make the difference between success and failure. The law is a dynamic field that is constantly evolving. Moreover, legal landscapes inhere many nuances and technicalities that may escape the notice of most laypeople. Nonetheless, such nuances and technicalities have major implications for any type of law-related scenario and lack of attention to such seemingly “trivial” details can have devastating consequences.

For instance, failure to file a required court pleading on the proper size paper or in the proper format can totally nullify its legal effectiveness and result in a court’s outright rejection of it without even considering its substantive merits. Quite often, there is no second chance to refile such defective filings. This could easily cause a meritorious claim to be summarily dismissed, or a judicial ruling to be issued based solely on your opponent’s arguments on a particular issue in a lawsuit. Moreover, experienced lawyers have developed a keen sense of whether or not formal litigation is even required or appropriate in a given situation. Many times, the probable level of monetary relief does not justify the filing fees and other associated costs of full adversarial court proceedings. Even in matters where potential damage awards do make such expenses worthwhile in the end, an experienced attorney can help a claimant obtain the most cost-effective outcome possible by expert negotiation skills.

Negotiations with insurance adjusters are a prime example of such cases. In most instances, insurance carriers are notorious for trying to undercut lay damage claimants who approach them without the assistance of a practicing personal injury lawyer. This is because adjusters represent their employers — the insurance carriers. Thus, it is in their employer’s best interests to settle damage claims for as little as possible and as quickly as possible, to minimize their economic exposure in each case. The unfortunate aspect of this practice for damage claimants, however, is that they do not receive a fair amount of monetary reimbursement for the physical injuries, property damage, or other losses that they sustained due to the negligence of a third party. Many people in such circumstances are reluctant to retain the services of an experienced personal injury law firm because such firms typically require one-third of any total recovery that is ultimately obtained as payment for legal services rendered.

Nonetheless, studies consistently reveal that claimants who do engage a qualified personal injury attorney recover far more than the insurance company’s original offer — even after deduction of the lawyer’s one-third contingency fee. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, the best personal injury attorneys have usually already established professional reputations within the insurance industry. Thus, insurance adjusters are aware that they will fight zealously on behalf of their injured clients by going all the way to trial if necessary. Insurers naturally seek to avoid this, as such formal legal proceedings cost them large amounts in legal defense fees, expert witnesses, bad publicity, etc.Read more:

Source :

Matthews Bark|”Why Defense Lawyers Defend Killers & Rapists”

Source                 :
Category             :   Matthews Bark
By                         :   Abbe Smith
Posted By           :   Contact DUI Lawyer

Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal Defense Attorney

The trauma nurses who took care of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after his arrest have a straightforward explanation. “I don’t get to pick and choose my patients,” one told the Boston Globe.The three public defenders assigned to Tsarnaev would have been similarly constrained. But what about the two prominent defense lawyers who have offered their services? Why choose to represent a man accused of turning the Boston Marathon finish line into a war zone?

Likewise, how could the lawyers representing Cleveland’s Ariel Castro fight for the serial kidnapper and rapist? And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen? I have been a criminal defense lawyer for more than 30 years, first as a public defender and now as a law professor running a criminal defense clinic. My clients have included a young man who gunned down his neighbor in front of her 5-year-old daughter while trying to steal her car, a man who beat a young woman to death for failing to alert drug associates that police were coming and a woman who smothered her baby for no apparent reason. These are the kinds of cases that prompt people to ask: “How can you represent those people?” All criminal defense lawyers are asked this; it’s such a part of the criminal defense experience that it’s simply known as “the question.” Most of us have a repertoire of stock replies about how the system can’t work without good lawyers on both sides, or the harshness of punishment or the excessive number of people — especially minorities — locked up in this country. Capital-case defenders such as Tsarnaev lawyer Judy Clarke tend to cite their opposition to the death penalty.

But our motivations are usually personal and sometimes difficult to articulate. I often say I was inspired by “To Kill a Mockingbird.” There is no more compelling figure than Atticus Finch defending a wrongly accused poor black man.  Innocence, though, is not a chief driver for me. To the contrary, I often call my life’s work “the guilty project.” Criminal defense is, for the most part, defending the factually guilty — people who have done something wrong, though maybe not exactly what is alleged.

That works for me because, as it happens, I like guilty people. I prefer people who are flawed and complicated to those who are irreproachable. As legendary American lawyer Clarence Darrow put it more than 80 years ago: “Strange as it may seem, I grew to like to defend men and women charged with crime. … I became vitally interested in the causes of human conduct. … I was dealing with life, with its hopes and fears, its aspirations and despairs.” Defense lawyers try to find the humanity in the people we represent, no matter what they may have done. We resist the phrase “those people” because it suggests too clear a line between us and them.

Ms. Clarke has managed to do this with some of the most notorious criminals of the past two decades, including “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. “Even if it’s the smallest sliver of common ground, Judy’s going to be able to find that,” said Kaczynski’s brother, David. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Judy saw my brother’s humanity despite the terrible things he’d done.”

We may even come to develop affection for our clients — as did the Boston nurses, who caught themselves calling Tsarnaev “hon.” “There are very few clients I have had who I didn’t like,” Miriam Conrad, another Tsarnaev lawyer, has said.
Criminal lawyers are sometimes accused of investing all our sympathy in our clients and having none for victims. But we are human beings; we have feelings.
Over the years there has been a handful of cases that tested me: sympathetic victims, unspeakably cruel crimes, clients who seemed to lack any conscience. I once represented a young man accused of an armed rape of a recent college graduate who was an AmeriCorps volunteer. She could have been me at that age — full of idealism. It was hard to face her in court.

I represented a man accused of child abuse who seemed to hate everyone, especially women. I admit I derived some satisfaction from the fact that his defense lawyer, prosecutor and judge were all women — even though I did everything I could on his behalf. The people I have in mind when I say “I like guilty people” are not those who commit acts of such depravity that it’s painful to read stories about them. I mean the vast majority of my clients, who, for a variety of reasons, have committed crimes but who are not evil. My car-thief client was only 16 when he killed his neighbor. He was immature and impulsive, and he’d had a hard time fitting in. He’d never been in trouble with the law, but on that day he got in trouble at school and was trying to escape his dad’s wrath when he grabbed a gun to frighten his neighbor into giving him her car. Thirty years later, he still can’t believe he pulled the trigger. He has grown up in prison and is more than sorry for what he did. I’ve been endeavoring to get him released on parole.
My baby-killing client has no recollection of harming her 18-month-old. She accepts that she must have done it and feels regret and shame. In prison for more than 26 years, she has shown herself to be a woman of faith and service, working in the prison hospital and the Catholic chaplain’s office. I took her case because she has served her sentence and been a model prisoner, yet she has been repeatedly denied parole. My drug-dealing client knew the woman he killed — he once bought presents for her kids. He wishes he had made different choices on that day and at other points in his life. Released from prison after 20 years, he is grateful to have a second chance.

I realize this may be what every defender says: My clients, no matter what they may have done, aren’t wicked. They are damaged, deprived or in distress. Their crimes can be understood as the products of awful lives, or of being young, hot-headed and lacking in judgment, or of not having the mental wherewithal to know what they were doing. There is always a story. Castro lawyers Craig Weintraub and Jaye Schlachet were typical in insisting, after meeting with their client for several hours, that he isn’t the “monster” he had been made out to be.
If knowing our clients makes it too easy to explain how we can represent them, maybe it’s better to ask whether we would represent other people’s clients.
Defending Castro would be especially difficult for me. Although I have never turned down a court appointment based on the nature of the case, there are crimes I find especially abhorrent: child abductions that feature sexual abuse and hate crimes of all sorts. With the allegations of kidnapping, sexual assault and torture, Castro’s is exactly the kind of case I find hard to stomach. It’s distressing to read fiction about these kinds of crimes — such as Alice Sebold’s “The Lovely Bones” or Emma Donoghue’s “Room” — let alone grapple with the real thing.
I don’t envy the lawyers representing Tsarnaev. He is young — I can understand why those nurses were instinctively kind to him — but there is overwhelming evidence that he killed, maimed and terrorized innocent people in the place where he grew up. I would want to say to him: “What the hell were you thinking?” But good defense lawyers resist the urge to pile on; it isn’t a useful way to form a relationship.

There’s something about cases in which everyone is calling for blood that makes it easier to fight for people like Tsarnaev and Castro. Maybe there’s a contrarian streak in all good criminal lawyers. Frankly, the uproar over the image of Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone made me want to stand up for him — or at least for the editors of the magazine. I confess that I gravitate more to Trayvon Martin — the young black man unfairly targeted — than neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman. But that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have defended Mr. Zimmerman. Prominent criminal lawyer Edward Bennett Williams once noted that he took on difficult cases for unpopular clients “not because of my own wishes, but because of the unwritten law that I might not refuse.” That unwritten law still motivates criminal lawyers, along with the knowledge that none of us would want to be defined by the very worst thing we ever did.

Matthews Bark|”How A Criminal Defense Attorney Differs from A Civil Defense Attorney”

Source                 :
Category             :   Matthews Bark
By                         :   zuarticles
Posted By           :   Contact the Attorneyl

Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal Defense Attorney

Hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney is incredibly important for navigating the court system. Many find themselves completely lost as to how to move forward when charged with a crime. Whether clients feel they are guilty of these crimes or not, a criminal defense lawyer can help them challenge law enforcement’s claim to probable cause, argue for a release on reduced bail, negotiate plea bargains, aid in expunging a criminal record and help clients understand the pros and cons of pleading guilty.

In order to decide what type of lawyer you need, it’s important to know the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law. According to William Geldart, author of the book Introduction to English Law 146, the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law can be defined by their separate objectives. ” The object of civil law,” he claims, “is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss.”

Criminal Law, on the other hand, has a completely different purpose in the courtroom according to Geldart. He says, “the main object of criminal law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.” Readers of this information can clearly see how vital legal council can be in this sort of situation. While Civil Law is more of a collaborative effort addressing loss prevention for the prosecutor, criminal law is a direct and ruthless attack on the defendant accused.

So how can a criminal defense lawyer best help their clients? A good criminal defense lawyer will focus a considerable amount of effort into collecting facts on the case from both the client and investigators. Proper research on any case is the foundation and absolutely essential for a decent trial. The main focus of criminal defense is maintain doubt of guilt, and secondly to reduce the blow of punishment by the court.

Locating testimonials on a lawyer offers the best chance of finding someone who can strongly argue your case for you. It is often best to find reviews made on a third party website such as Yelp, because any claims published on the lawyer’s own website will likely not include any disappointed clients. A great criminal defense attorney will stand by their client no matter what and fight for the best resolution possible on behalf of the client.