For many years, I have been driving north up highway 35 to the Buffalo County Circuit Court in Alma, Wisconsin.  I have handled cases, ranging from OWI/DUI 1st or Disorderly Conduct, to very serious felonies, with very good results.  I have tried a civil case there, with equal success. 

I enjoy practicing in the Buffalo County Circuit Court.  Like the other smaller counties I travel to, including Trempealeau, Jackson, Pepin, Portage, Columbia, and Clark Counties in WIsconsin, the court personnel and staff are approachable and helpful.  The judges and District Attorneys are professional and courteous.  They appreciate the role of defense counsel. 

If you have been charged with OWI/DUI or a criminal charge in Buffalo County, or if you have been injured in a car accident there, call me at (608)  781-5400 for more information on how I can help you.  I know the Buffalo County Circuit Court.  I have established a reputation there as a serious trial lawyer.  My office is closer to Alma than La Crosse, and as with all other counties, I will substantially discount my rate for travel to Alma, making it affordable for you to have the finest legal assistance for your Buffalo County Case.  Most important, I will work my ass off to get you results. 

The following are the opinions of the author:

 "I see Avvo as the worst player in what has become a never-ending and, ultimately demeaning, arms race of attorney rating manipulation, far worse than 'Superlawyer', and that's saying something."

I can't remember when I first stumbled onto Avvo.  But I remember looking myself up and seeing my so-called Avvo rating.  I compared other attorneys.  I strongly disagreed with the ratings.  I quickly emailed Avvo.  The shorthand summary:  "Take me off Avvo.  You can't post my name and apply some BS rating to me."  Reply:  "Yes we can, and we will".  Response:  "Take me off your website or I'll sue" ( I am an attorney, after all).  Reply:  "Go ahead.  We are Avvo.  We are providing a great public service with our great website.  You will be on Avvo, like every other attorney."  

[update:  I recently had much of my profile information removed from AVVO.  This happened after I told one of their salespeople that I wanted to be removed from their call list (they frequently called bugging me about advertising with them).  I added that I disagreed with their business plan.   I'm not sure if that was the reason, but the timing is suspect.  I am still listed on AVVO, and I am still assigned a BS rating, but my picture and other biographical info was deleted.]  

The Avvo catch:  Avvo forces attorneys to participate in its site.  Avvo does not require attorneys to actively participate, but there is no way to opt out completely.  Avvo then rewards those who do participate by making them look better, which makes those who do not participate look comparatively worse.  Attorneys don't like looking comparatively worse.  Hence, Avvo forces participation from many attorneys who seek to level the playing field, which in turn, can lead to some overall crappy results.   
 
Like many other attorneys, I disliked the Avvo concept from the get go, and I refused to play Avvo's game.  Unfortunately, I eventually saw that many other attorneys in this area were playing Avvo's game.  They were claiming their profiles; filling in all their information; posting their picture; posting that all-important link to their website; answering questions posted by the public; and--worst of all-- getting their so-called "peer endorsements" (see part 1 of this series), all of which raised their Avvo rating above mine. 

I can't remember exactly, but I think this was just after I moved from my former law firm to my own law office in 2008.  I worried about losing potential business to attorneys who were driving up their Avvo ratings.  In a moment of weakness, I claimed my profile, uploaded a picture, and filled in my biographical information.  Thankfully, I never went so far as to solicit a single peer endorsement from other attorneys.  However, I did sign up to start answering questions posted by people seeking information.  It  wasn't long before I became so frustrated (disgusted, is a better word) with this process and left Avvo (I stopped actively participating.  Avvo won't let me leave, remember?).
    
What I did not know when I signed up was that Avvo created a race to answer questions by rewarding speed over content, awarding many more contribution credits to the first three, or first hour, responders.  Also, Avvo doesn't penalize bad, perfunctory and/or useless responses.  The result, as least as I see it, was many attorneys simply trying to answer the most questions as quickly as possible, in order to boost their "contribution level" and overall stature on Avvo.  Imagine a classroom where the students are rewarded for shouting the answer first, even if they give the wrong or incomplete answer.   

Here's the way it works.  When you agree to answer questions on Avvo, you get an email alerting you that a question has been posted in your selected practice areas.  You soon realize that, even when you respond very quickly, often, a number of attorneys have already posted responses.  Frequently, it is attorneys who do not even practice in the state where the question originated, and often nowhere near it.  So, a question about a Wisconsin or Minnesota OWI/DWI could have responses from attorneys in California, Arizona, New York, etc.  If you are too late, you do not fetch the points needed to increase your "contribution level". 

This is not exactly the type of system that promotes well-reasoned (let alone researched) responses to someone's important legal question.  In fact, more than once, while attempting to write a meaningful response, some other attorney posted a lousy response and beat me out.  Those attorney were awarded 10 "contribution points" by being one of the first three posts.  
 
Because Avvo creates a race to answer questions--and for some attorneys this means, many, many, many questions as quickly as possible--many of the responses I read were (1) ill-informed or incorrect, often preceded by the caveat, "I don't practice in your state, so. . ."; (2) redundant, often to the effect of, "I agree with the above writer . . ." (Yes, you get points for agreeing);  and/or (3) simply unhelpful, such as, "You should hire/speak with an attorney." 

In fact, "You should hire an attorney" is easily the most repeated phrase in the Avvo attorney responses.  Why?  It is almost always the right  and responsible response to someone seeking guidance on a legal issue.  

The fact is, life--and the way life interacts with the law--is almost always way too complicated to be addressed in the single question, single answer format of Avvo, or any other similar online "ask an attorney" site.  There usually are too many variable for this to be effective.  However, that is probably not what the average person seeking answers on Avvo wants to hear.  They are there because they want to avoid hiring an attorney.  These limitations can lead to a lot of frustration with attorneys, which is not necessarily good for the overall image of the profession.    
 
To Avvo's credit, it does give incentives to attorneys who write the most helpful answers to posted questions, as judged by the person asking the question.  And I must admit, I have read some good answers to questions posted by the public.  Overall, however, the get-as-many-points-as-you-can system Avvo has created has reduced many attorneys to groveling "Pac-Men" who run around hastily trying to gobble up as many points as they can to improve their stature on Avvo.  

If you ask the most actively-participating lawyers why they do Avvo, they will probably serve up some canned response about helping people and serving justice.  But would they truly be doing this if there were no "points" being awarded, no perceived edge being attained over the competition?  I see Avvo as the worst player in what has become a never-ending and, ultimately demeaning, cold war of attorney rating manipulation, far worse than "Superlawyer", and that's saying something. 

My advice: Call a lawyer in your area who has a practice in the area of law you are dealing with.  At least then there is some opportunity for back and forth discussion.  Depending on the area of law, many will speak to you for free.  If it turns out that you decide to hire an attorney, then so be it.  This is what most of the attorneys on Avvo are going to tell you to do anyhow.

The following are the opinions of the author:

"And you thought a prerequisite to being a lawyer was being smart enough to avoid stepping right into a steaming pile of circular reasoning. . . ."

If you have looked for an attorney online, then you probably ran across Avvo.  Avvo is a website that supposedly rates attorneys and allows you to post questions for a pool of participating attorneys to answer, which answers usually end with words to the effect of, "You need to hire an attorney."  The question and answer part of it, I learned, is also badly flawed, but that is the subject for a later post.  But for right now, if you are thinking about using Avvo's so-called
attorney rating to decide which lawyer to hire for your important case, then think again.
 
Some attorneys post their Avvo rating on their website profile to brag about themselves in hopes of attracting (or, as you will read, maybe fooling) clients.  The shame is, some of those attorneys deserve to brag, and some don't, and because of Avvo's faulty rating system, you may never know which is which until it is too late. 

If you go to the AVVO website and look me up, you will see that I am rated as "Good."  Funny thing is, I used to have a higher rating, and nothing changed, except I got more experienced and better as an attorney.  Make sense?  It shouldn't.  That is why in almost every field in my Avvo profile, you will read, "Avvo Sucks! (In my opinion)".  Knowing how it works, I refuse to play the Avvo game, but no attorney, including me, can opt out of their dumb website.

Just today, I went to Avvo and looked up a former law partner of mine (whose name I will keep secret to protect the innocent).  This guy is a fabulous criminal and civil trial lawyer with more than 35 years experience, and AV rated by Martindale Hubbell for many, many years.  However, Avvo had him rated as "Good," only one step up from their lowest favorable rating, "Average."  I can personally take you to the profiles of numerous other attorneys who, in my opinion, have far less experience and far less talent, but who have been rated "Very Good", "Excellent", and even "Superb".  How can that be, you ask?  Simple: The so-called "peer endorsement" component of Avvo is a breeze to manipulate. 

"Then why don't you manipulate it"?, you may ask?  Number one, I am not a kiss ass, and neither is my former partner; and number two, that would be completely dishonest, not to mention a complete disservice to people who are looking for honest and accurate information when seeking an attorney.  

If I put my "Avvo rating" above my integrity, as many attorneys-- but certainly not all--have done, then I could easily, and almost instantly boost my Avvo rating.  All I would need to do is look up some of my law school buddies and get them to agree to give each other good peer endorsements.  Hopefully, they would not agree to that, right?  Well, take a look at some higher-ranking profiles on Avvo, and then look at their peer endorsements.  You will often find lawyers from different states, sometimes even different regions of the Country, giving ringing endorsements to a lawyer in your city.  You may even see that the attorney who received the endorsement has reciprocated by giving a sterling endorsement back.  Wow:  I'm sure nothing is going on there.
 
Even more manipulative is the prospect of lawyers within the same community, but with differing practice areas, reciprocating with good peer endorsements in order to give each other a leg up on the competition by artificially boosting their Avvo ratings.  In fact, some peer endorsements are not even dishonest, because they identify themselves as a "friend" or former coworker of the attorney.  Avvo still sees it as a favorable endorsement.  Of course, the other possibility is the, "You get me an endorsement, and I'll get you one", to avoid the obvious trading of endorsements.  Remember, Avvo doesn't send ballots out and ask lawyers pick other good lawyers to endorse.  The lawyer has to go out of his/her way to look up the lawyer and give them an endorsement.   That's awful nice of them, isn't it?

Take the case of a local attorney who was recently publically reprimanded for taking money from a State-funded public defender client on the side.  He has accumulated 13 peer endorsements.  Of those, 4 can be considered local attorneys, 2 are from other areas of the state, and the rest are from attorneys as far away as Massachusetts and New York.  However, almost all the endorsements claim to be a "fellow attorney in the community."   I suppose that could be true, so long as you consider "the community" as encompassing a territory stretching from western Wisconsin to Massachusetts, or as including every attorney on Avvo.  I doubt that's what most people have in mind.
Further, in each case, the local attorney reciprocated with an endorsement of the other attorney.  It gets worse:

Among the 13 attorneys willing to vouch for our local attorney are Howard M. Lewis, an attorney from Massachusetts who has accumulated 650 personal peer endorsements, stretching from coast to coast; and Matisyahu Wolfberg, from New York, who has 172 personal peer endorsements.  Alas, Howard M. Lewis even endorsed one of the other Wisconsin attorneys who endorsed, and was endorsed by, our local attorney!  If you look closely at the endorsements, you will even find attorneys justifying their endorsement based on the number of endorsements the attorney has amassed.  And you thought a prerequisite to being a lawyer was being smart enough avoid to stepping right into a steaming pile of circular reasoning.    

Yet another concern with Avvo's "peer endorsement" component is the prospect that, the more popular the lawyer with other lawyers, the more peer endorsements he/she may get.  However, being popular with other attorneys is not necessarily any measure of being a good attorney and, for better or worse, it can be very bad measure, if you consider that attorneys, and particularly trial attorneys, often work against each other in what has been rightfully termed an "adversarial" system.  Being liked by your adversaries is far different from being respected by them.  I doubt any of my "adversaries" would ever go out of their way to endorse me on Avvo.  If they did, I would certainly worry about what that says about me as a lawyer.    

Alas, there are far more reliable ways to find a good lawyer by than looking to this faulty rating system.  That will be the subject of a future post.  Stay tuned.  In the meantime, for a hillarious article by another attorney who thinks Avvo has no clue, read "AVVOcalypse Now". http://unwashedadvocate.com/2012/11/23/avvocalypse-now/

(Not Legal  Advice)

“I Just Want to Get  it Over With.”  Sound Familiar?  Not so Fast.
Many people charged with an OWI offense take the matter far too lightly. Some view it as a mere “traffic ticket.” They “just want to get it over with” or put it behind them.  This is a big mistake.  Many people plead guilty with woefully inadequate information about the consequences of their plea.  The truth is, by pleading guilty or no contest to OWI, you may never be able to put it behind you. 
 
The consequences of even a first-offense OWI have steadily grown more severe. In Wisconsin, for example, people convicted of OWI will have that conviction on their driving record forever. That conviction can then be used to enhance, or aggravate, future OWI charges and consequences. The Wisconsin Legislature is right now contemplating making a Third-Offense OWI a felony. 

The fines associated with an OWI  conviction are very significant. Moreover, the conviction will almost always result in substantially increased insurance premiums, and in some instances, outright cancellation.  

In Wisconsin, an OWI conviction will result in a mandatory license revocation of at least 6 months.  This can jeopardize your livelihood.  For example, Commercial Motor Vehicle  license holders will be ineligible to drive a commercial vehicle for one year,  even if they are merely administratively suspended pending their OWI trial. Those who incur two OWI convictions after September 2005—even if the convictions stem from use of their private vehicle—will simply have to find a new line of work.   

The fact is, some people will plead guilty or no contest to an OWI that could have been dismissed, reduced, or which could have resulted in acquittal.  Many will plead guilty not knowing how the conviction will affect them, now and into the future.  A good OWI attorney will obtain your driving record, get all the facts, and provide you the information you need before you make a decision you cannot take back, and, often, will never live down.            
 
 “I Don’t Need a Lawyer.”  
 If you have been charged with an OWI offense, you have some very important decisions to make.  A conviction will likely follow you for the rest of your life.  The “other side” will have a lawyer representing its interests against you.  That lawyer took an oath to zealously represent his/her client, the town, city, county or State. That person cannot represent your interests at the same time.  If you are relying upon the prosecuting attorney to advise you of your best interests, you are making a big mistake.  
 
A prosecutor can prosecute you so long as there is “probable cause” supporting your charge.  “Probable cause” is a lower level  of proof than is needed to convict you.  Most prosecutors have a heavy caseload.  You simply cannot rely upon them to point out weaknesses or defenses that could jeopardize their “client’s” case.  Rest assured, most prosecutors would rather have you plead guilty or no contest to the offense. You need an experienced advocate on
your side to help you determine what is in your best interests. 

“I Have Time to  Think About This.”
In Wisconsin, if a legal blood-alcohol test puts your blood-or breath-alcohol level over .08, or if you refuse to undertake such test, you have as little as 10 days to act to prevent  the suspension or revocation of your license.  If you blow it off, your driving privileges will automatically be suspended or revoked by the DOT. This is serious, because a test “refusal” can have the same effect as an OWI conviction, in terms of being “counted” as a prior offense.  As mentioned above, for persons with Commercial Driver's Licenses, the  administrative suspension alone will result in one year without a commercial  driver's license. 

Your rights can be drastically affected well before your  first mandatory court appearance.  Many people let this crucial time lapse, thinking there is nothing they can do.  However, there are issues that a good OWI attorney can look for, and a good OWI attorney will have helped numerous clients avoid an interruption of their driving privileges.  One thing is for sure, if you do nothing, you will lose.                   

“Any Lawyer Can  Handle My OWI/DWI/DUI Case.”
OWI law is complicated.  Public demands for more strict  standards and penalties have  caused frequent changes in the laws and penalty structures.  It is challenging for a criminal defense attorney who regularly practices in this field to keep abreast of these frequent changes, let alone the attorney who defends the “occasional” OWI case. 

A lawyer who keeps track of these changes will help you navigate this “minefield.”  To ensure the competency and efficiency of your legal counsel, it is strongly recommended that you hire a lawyer who regularly practices in this field. 
Before you hire an OWI attorney, ask (1) how many OWI cases have they taken to a jury trial, (2) what percentage of their practice is dedicated to OWI defense, and (3) what instruction do they have to keep up to date with the changes in the OWI laws. 

OWI cases regularly involve scientific testing procedures to determine blood-alcohol levels. These procedures involve strict protocols and standards that must be observed to ensure the reliability and admissibility of the test results.  The introduction of such evidence at trial can be  tricky, even for the seasoned prosecutor. 

A good OWI attorney is familiar with the rules the scientists and prosecutors must follow, and he/she will jump to
action when they have not done so.  A good OWI lawyer must know how to obtain, analyze, and detect possible defenses from the various materials available.  He/she should have experts” he/she can turn to aid in this process and, if necessary, testify at trial. 

It is a serious mistake to believe any attorney can  effectively handle these cases.  Most can't.  I have been
representing persons charged with OWI/DWI/DUI from the first day of my practice.  I regularly attend and participate in annual training conducted by the most talented and knowledgeable attorneys in this field.  I have handled these cases in trial for years.  I know what to look for, so you need look no further. 
 
 “The Cheaper the Lawyer, the Better.”
Lawyers are also businessmen.  A good law practice is expensive to maintain.  Lawyers must charge  sufficient money to pay expenses and their salaries.  More importantly, OWI cases require very careful attention to detail, and may need to go to trial. 
 
 Good OWI attorneys will not undertake responsibility for a case unless there are sufficient funds to guarantee a substantial portion of their fees and expenses.  If you find a lawyer who will take your case at a very low price or
rate, it may be cause for concern.  You may only be worse off if your lawyer withdraws from your case after the insufficient retainer he/she required has been exhausted. 

Almost any lawyer can sit next you as you plead guilty.  A good OWI attorney should consider a guilty plea the last resort, not the presumed outcome.  However, properly  investigating and developing your
defense will cost money.    

“I Tested Over ‘the Legal Limit’, So I Must Be Guilty.”
In Wisconsin, you are “guilty” of simple OWI only if you drove or operated a motor vehicle upon a highway while (1) impaired in your ability to drive by alcohol; or (2) while having a blood-alcohol concentration at or above .08.  If your blood-alcohol level was at or above .08 at the time of the test, it does not necessarily mean it was the same level while you actually drove or operated your vehicle.  Importantly, the Preliminary Breath Test ("PBT"), which is the device used to test your blood- alcohol level at the roadside, is not admissible at trial in most states, including Wisconsin. 

Alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream over time.  Therefore, a person who was not impaired, but who “tests”
with a blood-alcohol at or above .08, could in fact be innocent.  With the proper information, a good OWI attorney can have your case analyzed to determine whether you fall within this category of defendants.  No person should have to
plead guilty to an offense they did not commit.        

The proliferation of OWI traffic stops and arrests has put tremendous pressure on the equipment and personnel in charge of testing breath and blood samples for BAC.  After all, the test result is only a piece of paper with a numerical
result, a fancy heading and a signature. It is not even the actual test, but instead a document created after the fact to look important and "official".

Testing equipment must be properly maintained and operated, and exacting protocols and tolerances must be observed, in order to obtain accurate and admissible BAC test results.  An experienced OWI attorney will, where appropriate, know how to obtain the documentation necessary to determine whether there may be equipment maintenance or performance issues that can be used to demonstrate doubt regarding the test result.  I have never handled any case where the prosecuting attorney knew more than me about the BAC testing equipment, or the
procedures and science surrounding the testing process.

As the saying goes, "The size of the attorney's ad is inversely proportionate to the skill of the attorney."  True, some attorneys pay for big, gaudy ad's in the phone book in order to net as many clients as they can.  Some attorneys' ad's are obviously trying to convince the public that they are "tougher" than the other guy.  But even assuming they are that "tough", will it lead to results for the person charged with a crime or injured in an accident? 

I am an advertising attorney, like nearly every other attorney out there.  Attorneys spend a TON of money advertising in the phone book, on TV and radio.  So, I frequently do look at, or listen to, ad's put out by other attorneys.  With all due respect, I often end up laughing at, or worse, embarrassed by, some lawyers' ad's.  

Many attorneys' ad's boast that the attorney is "tough", or "aggressive", and/or "will fight for you."  But are you hiring an attorney or a professional wrestler?  Such attorneys sometimes craft ad's that portray themselves as feared or revered by the opponent.  You may have seen the one where the attorney brags that some defeated--and, conveniently, anonymous--prosecutor had congratulated the attorney for being so great in court; or the one where two insurances adjusters privately confess that they "better settle fast" now that attorney so-and-so is handling the case.  I don't even have to go into the "Denny Crane" ad's.  The bigger the city, the more the competition, the more desperate these ad's get.  If you are considering hiring an attorney based upon "tough talk", consider this:

Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro, was an attorney from Rochester, New York.  He owned three law firms, and he claimed in his fantastic ad's to be "the meanest, nastiest S.O.B.  in town" with "aggressive courtroom prowess".   He reportedly even sold T-shirts that read:  "Protected by Vicious S.O.B., Jim The Hammer Shapiro."  This guy must have been a fierce trial attorney, right?   In fact, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, later found this big-talking lawyer "never tried a case to its conclusion".  HE NEVER EVEN TRIED A CASE!

Don't let your desire to win cloud your common sense.  Cases are handled by human beings on both sides.  Just like you, the people on the other side of your case expect to be treated with a certain amount of respect.  Prosecutors, judges, insurance adjusters, and attorneys on the other side of your case are not likely to cave in just because your attorney is a bully.  The opposite result is more likely:  A jerk attorney can cause the other side to dig in and refuse to be reasonable, hurting your case, costing you time, and, perhaps, a lot more money.  Not  very smart at all.

You want an attorney who is SMART, and who is a CREDIBLE threat.  Such attorney is willing to try cases, and has the skill to pull out a victory, even when it looks doubtful.  That reputation will speak for itself.  You want an attorney who will be very resolute, but who will also choose battles carefully and not turn everyone against you with a "flamethrower" approach to litigation.  That kind of attorney will make the OTHER side look bad if THEY are not reasonable.  When it comes to good lawyering, being smart may be twice as good as being "tough".  

Think about what a lawyer's ad might really be saying about the lawyer before you dial those digits.