Dream job is to defend DUIs... What are my options? Forum

[QContinuum]

Personally, I think it would get old rather fast. There are only so many possible defenses for DUIs, and only so many fact patterns. I imagine cases would start blurring together after a while.

That's a great point and I entirely agree. How many variations could there possibly be? There's a potential argument that there was no valid reason for the car to be stopped in the first place - the driver wasn't weaving or driving erratically, and it wasn't a general checkpoint. So the stop was a 4A violation and the DUI needs to be tossed. Maybe the defense is that the particular BAC test/device used was unreliable (this is probably the single most typical defense), so there's insufficient evidence that the driver was actually drunk. Or maybe the driver was concededly drunk, but was legitimately in fear of his life and had no choice but to drive drunk to escape his assailants. I mean, that's about it as far as defenses go. There aren't really many nuances.

I'd like to counter this. I eventually transitioned out of my old life and now predominantly do estate planning for farmers. Sure, it's not the most exciting field, and the work itself is really pedestrian, but I enjoy it. A lot of it is variations on a theme, but I love the stories.

It's not for everybody, but for me it's perfect. If OP has a niche he or she thinks he/she will love, go for it.

IMO, estate planning involves far more potential variation than DUI defense. People can think up some pretty damned creative/crazy ideas on how they want to distribute their estate. Not so much for someone driving drunk - either they were drunk or they weren't, and if they were, there are very limited defenses (see my earlier post ITT).

[nixy]

Personally, I think it would get old rather fast. There are only so many possible defenses for DUIs, and only so many fact patterns. I imagine cases would start blurring together after a while.

That's a great point and I entirely agree. How many variations could there possibly be? There's a potential argument that there was no valid reason for the car to be stopped in the first place - the driver wasn't weaving or driving erratically, and it wasn't a general checkpoint. So the stop was a 4A violation and the DUI needs to be tossed. Maybe the defense is that the particular BAC test/device used was unreliable (this is probably the single most typical defense), so there's insufficient evidence that the driver was actually drunk. Or maybe the driver was concededly drunk, but was legitimately in fear of his life and had no choice but to drive drunk to escape his assailants. I mean, that's about it as far as defenses go. There aren't really many nuances.

I'd like to counter this. I eventually transitioned out of my old life and now predominantly do estate planning for farmers. Sure, it's not the most exciting field, and the work itself is really pedestrian, but I enjoy it. A lot of it is variations on a theme, but I love the stories.

It's not for everybody, but for me it's perfect. If OP has a niche he or she thinks he/she will love, go for it.

I think that sounds like a great gig.

If you like dealing with people and helping them, the limited legal issues in dealing with DUIs probably wouldn’t be a problem.

[FND]

I'd like to counter this. I eventually transitioned out of my old life and now predominantly do estate planning for farmers. Sure, it's not the most exciting field, and the work itself is really pedestrian, but I enjoy it. A lot of it is variations on a theme, but I love the stories.

It's not for everybody, but for me it's perfect. If OP has a niche he or she thinks he/she will love, go for it.

I think that sounds like a great gig.

I truly love my job. I am in complete control of my schedule (barring the occasional emergency), and while it can be fairly complicated, once you get the hang of e.g. pet trusts, once you've created a good template (with variations), you're really just stitching existing pieces together. Thanks to technology, most document production is automated, though I usually do end up doing some custom drafting.
The really hard part is listening to the client, and figuring out what they need, as opposed to what they want. The way I do it is also quite challenging, as I try to figure out the solution with the client in the room, but clients love being part of the collaborative design process.

And in the last 3 years, I've only had to deal with one crazy client!

[lavarman84]

Those are terrible analogies, except for the law school one. Of course, the data on law schools is a lot more clear and easier to analyze. Even then, some of the people on this site will chime in with dumbass advice from time to time because they have no experience and are relying solely on the numbers.

So your position is that anyone who doesn't attend a T4 law school has no business giving advice re: whether attending a T4 law school is a good idea? And that the non-T4 alumni among us who give such advice are "dumbasses"?

Nope, my position is that there is no issue with cautioning somebody not to attend a TTTT law school based off of the data. However, if you were to opine what life is like at a TTTT law school without having attended, you would be talking out of your ass. Further, my point is that the data on solo practitioners isn't nearly as clear or easy to analyze as the data on law schools. Finally, my point is that there has been some bad advice given on this site when people ventured out of their lane.

You're entitled to view a single solo's opinion about every other solo practitioner in the country as gospel. I think putting that much trust in any single poster is foolish and ill-advised, and I decline to do so.

Well, until you bring more to the table in terms of objective facts or another solo contradicts him, his opinion is the best we have. If it comes down to his opinion versus your opinion or Cav's opinion, it's an easy choice.

[QContinuum]

Nope, my position is that there is no issue with cautioning somebody not to attend a TTTT law school based off of the data. However, if you were to opine what life is like at a TTTT law school without having attended, you would be talking out of your ass.

Exactly right. That's why none of the non-solos ITT are opining on what life is like as a solo. (See my post earlier ITT about things that only someone with solo experience could reasonably speak to, like how to select an office location, or how to make contingent plans for unexpected illnesses.)

TLS has a long track record of telling folks to credit law schools' employment data over the unsupported opinions of admissions officers or current students. We're doing the same thing here by telling folks to credit solos' salary data over the unsupported opinion of a single practitioner.

AV, of course, is entitled to his opinion. But until he presents data contradicting the $50k, I'm going to credit the $50k over AV's unsupported opinion. (And it is unsupported: AV's own $90+k salary by no means contradicts the data indicating a $50k average salary. Undoubtedly there are solos making more than $50k (just as there are solos making less).)

Well, until you bring more to the table in terms of objective facts or another solo contradicts him, his opinion is the best we have. If it comes down to his opinion versus your opinion or Cav's opinion, it's an easy choice.

It's not a matter of my/Cav's opinion vs. AV's opinion. It's the $50k salary data vs. AV's unsupported opinion.

[nixy]

Can I say for the third time that people are taking the $50k data WAY too much at face value?

[QContinuum]

Can I say for the third time that people are taking the $50k data WAY too much at face value?

Feel free to actually explain why you disagree with the $50k data. "I trust AV over the data" doesn't really count.

As to your first point, AVBucks already addressed it. His rationale—which nobody here has the data or experience to dispute—is that many solo attorneys have lower profits because they maintain higher overheads.

"Higher overheads" is unsupported speculation. AV doesn't have some kind of magical looking glass into other solos' expenses.

As to your second point, the amount of data/research/experience required to credibly speak on a certain topic varies by topic. I doubt you’d take my word regarding a medical diagnosis based on my 5 hours of webMD browsing. 5 hours of LST browsing, however, may be sufficient for law school employment advice.

Aside from AV and his supporters ITT, no one's asking anyone to take any TLSer's word for it. We're telling folks to credit hard data over anecdotal opinion and speculation, consistent with longstanding TLS practice.

[AVBucks4239]

The most recent Ohio study I could find was 2013. Go to Exhibit 36: https://www.ohiobar.org/globalassets/ho ... ceohio.pdf

The medium NET for all solos was $65k. The average NET was $88k.

The median NET for full time solos was $80k. The average NET was $102k.

This supports my observation earlier that A LOT of solos netting $4-5k a month choose that lifestyle. I am good friends with two moms who solo part time and make around this and refer me work all the time. They simply don’t want to work more.

I also know that most government lawyers in the civil division run a small practice on the side. Those guys do make around $50-75k on the side, and don’t have time to take on too much, so they refer stuff as well.

I am in a lower income area of the state (NE, not Cleveland). I do not know a single full time solo with less than $100k revenues. And yes, we talk about this openly all the time because partnership possibilities are always worth entertaining and because you are always rooting for each other.

I am not sitting here pretending I am some blue collar steel worker. I’m just saying the work is out there. Appointments, GAL, local counsel, remote work could easily get you to $75k in revenues — and that’s BEFORE your first client. A single DUI can get you $3k. So get ONE client a month and you’re good. More generally, 3-4 pieces of civil litigation will get you to $100k easily.

To break it down more, to make $100k in revenues, you need to make $400 a day. That’s two hours of court appointed work, one billable hour at $200/hour, and maybe some local counsel work. And if you do not even have a single client for that one billable hour, you search job boards in your state and do remote work for like $40-60 an hour. Better yet, you get coffee and lunch with busy lawyers.

I guess I am repeating myself until I’m blue in the face — a solo can easily make $100k a year, and in my experience surveying the field like an absolute maniac for five years, it’s almost always a personal choice or high expense thing that prohibits achieving that goal. And I know some absolute moron attorneys with offices that look like Berlin in 1945 and they are all still making at least $100k.

[Aptitude]

This supports my observation earlier that A LOT of solos netting $4-5k a month choose that lifestyle. I am good friends with two moms who solo part time and make around this and refer me work all the time. They simply don’t want to work more.

I've stepped out of this thread for the most part, because of all the ridiculously uninformed comments, especially the last 2 posts I replied to.

But I'm posting because I've experienced what AVBucks is referring to. I have tried referring work out to solos and small firms. Most of the solos I know and refer stuff to, typically have their next 6 months or year planned out, and don't want to work more than the amount they have set. Once they've hit their profit objective, they stop. Even good cases with clients willing to pay 5 digit deposits upfront for cases that don't involve monetary investment from the firm, they'll refuse. It's a lifestyle thing, if they wanted to maximize their revenues and work 60, 70 hours they'd try expanding (which is a much more stressful process).

From what I've seen, a lot of them take a lot of days off, or are in at around 9ish and leave a bit after 3. Maybe they work at home, but it doesn't seem like they work too hard. I'd be surprised if it was over 40 hours. And I assume they make a good living, because they live in my neighborhood, which is a neighborhood well known for its rich population.

Also it's hilarious seeing so many people harp on the "you risk 6 digits and benefits" point - people risk much more money than that into their business ventures. If you think that's "risking" a lot for a business venture, you obviously don't have a lot of experience or have a really narrow view of how things work. 6 digits is really not that much at all for a business venture. People will gamble way more than that on 1 hand of blackjack at Macau. People on TLS just really don't understand risk/reward at all.

[nixy]

Can I say for the third time that people are taking the $50k data WAY too much at face value?

Feel free to actually explain why you disagree with the $50k data. "I trust AV over the data" doesn't really count.

Good thing I never actually said that. Let me repeat myself and point out again that the blog post (note: blog post) claiming $50k average is a response to a larger academic debate about solo incomes. It’s not remotely comprehensive or definitive. There’s clearly competing research out there and debate about how to define terms in the data that are unclear (specifically who counts as a solo). Until someone has reviewed that research more systematically, relying on one blog post (which is not remotely comparable to ABA 509s or LST reports) is simply about wanting it to be true.

[lavarman84]

Nope, my position is that there is no issue with cautioning somebody not to attend a TTTT law school based off of the data. However, if you were to opine what life is like at a TTTT law school without having attended, you would be talking out of your ass.

Exactly right. That's why none of the non-solos ITT are opining on what life is like as a solo. (See my post earlier ITT about things that only someone with solo experience could reasonably speak to, like how to select an office location, or how to make contingent plans for unexpected illnesses.)

TLS has a long track record of telling folks to credit law schools' employment data over the unsupported opinions of admissions officers or current students. We're doing the same thing here by telling folks to credit solos' salary data over the unsupported opinion of a single practitioner.

AV, of course, is entitled to his opinion. But until he presents data contradicting the $50k, I'm going to credit the $50k over AV's unsupported opinion. (And it is unsupported: AV's own $90+k salary by no means contradicts the data indicating a $50k average salary. Undoubtedly there are solos making more than $50k (just as there are solos making less).)

Well, until you bring more to the table in terms of objective facts or another solo contradicts him, his opinion is the best we have. If it comes down to his opinion versus your opinion or Cav's opinion, it's an easy choice.

It's not a matter of my/Cav's opinion vs. AV's opinion. It's the $50k salary data vs. AV's unsupported opinion.

Nixy, AVBucks, and Aptitude have covered it. You made your mind up without nearly enough information and are doing whatever it takes to justify that opinion. This goes back to what I said about TLS giving bad advice when people step outside their lanes. This isn't like the law school employment data. That data is incredibly comprehensive. This would be more akin to if law school employment data only gave you the options of "employed" or "unemployed." Here's Florida Coastal's numbers:
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/floridacoastal/jobs/

That could leave a person basically saying, "Oh, 70% chance you are employed vs. 30% chance you are not. Those aren't bad odds." Here's Loyola Chicago:
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/loyola-chicago/jobs/

"Oh, 85% chance of being employed vs. 15% chance of not being employed. Those are great odds!" We know how flawed that perspective would be because we have the entire picture. You don't have the entire picture with the data you cited. In fact, AVBucks cited a study that gives you a much broader picture, and it doesn't support the argument you're making. You need to take a step back and reassess here.

[QContinuum]

The most recent Ohio study I could find was 2013. Go to Exhibit 36: https://www.ohiobar.org/globalassets/ho ... ceohio.pdf

The medium NET for all solos was $65k. The average NET was $88k.

The median NET for full time solos was $80k. The average NET was $102k.

Thanks very much for providing this data. I agree that this certainly gives more context to the $50k figure cited earlier. At least in Ohio, we see, the median full-time solo can expect to make $80k.

Nixy, AVBucks, and Aptitude have covered it. You made your mind up without nearly enough information and are doing whatever it takes to justify that opinion.

AVBucks has now done exactly what I've asked him (or those supporting him ITT) to do: Provide hard data. Per AV's data, we see that in 2012, in Ohio, the median full-time solo practitioner made $80k. I'm perfectly happy to accept that median $80k salary. (Which, incidentally, is not necessarily inconsistent with the $50k figure previously cited ITT. It's entirely possible, and even plausible, that the median solo in, say, Mississippi makes less than than the median solo in Ohio.)

This goes back to what I said about TLS giving bad advice when people step outside their lanes.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I haven't given any weight to your "seconding" of AV's opinions.

In fact, AVBucks cited a study that gives you a much broader picture, and it doesn't support the argument you're making. You need to take a step back and reassess here.

I did not "make any argument" beyond pointing out that AV hadn't provided any data, and indeed hadn't even directly disputed the $50k figure. AV's only argument was that the $50k figure was misleading because it was due to 1) dumb solos who couldn't figure out how to cut unneeded expenses; and 2) lazy solos who couldn't be bothered to make more money once they hit $50k. AV "supported" that argument by pointing out that he was able to make $100k, and if he could do it, anyone could do it. I pointed out, rightly, that that's a terrible argument that shouldn't be credited.

So my argument all along was, if the $50k data can't be trusted, show the evidence.

[FND]

So get ONE client a month and you’re good. More generally, 3-4 pieces of civil litigation will get you to $100k easily.

Seconded, sort of. For me, 1st client covers marketing expenses*, 2nd client coves overhead and miscellaneous (and then some), and the third client is pure profit. 5+ clients per month correlates to a six figure annual income.

*I could do without marketing expenses, but I get noticeably more clients through advertising than I do organically. It's an investment.
Realistically, if I cut out marketing, and was looking to work part-time, 1 client a month is enough to live on.

[NoHorseNeedStealing]

Tagged for future reading.

Also interested in starting criminal defense just out of law school. I have experience in DWIs from internships, but definitely open generally.

[Swarley]

No real criminal defense involvement except for an internship.

You should get some experience first. Aside from getting on the public defender list, some firms also do criminal defense pro bono cases, which aren't exactly DUIs but share some similarities. I would be cautious concerning an area I'm not familiar with.

Btw, why DUIs in particular? Does OP have a DUI?

[JOThompson]

I spent the first four years of my career doing almost exclusively DUIs, both as part of a well-known criminal defense firm and as a solo.

In a larger market (think Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis), it's become very competitive. Firms and solos are spending sometimes many thousands of dollars a month to chase DUI leads. The math seems to work out for them, but it can be hard for a new solo without connections or a large cash reserve to break into the market. The majority of referrals are still probably word of mouth, but it takes quite awhile to get there organically. You can start with misdemeanor PD contracts, then transition slowly to private work, but that's grueling. And you'll have to deal with the perceived stigma of being a public defender. Clients will often not want to hire you because they know you have some portion of your caseload that is indigent defense. Why pay you when they could get you for free? I heard that one all the time.

If you wanted to lock down the market in a small town (20,000 to 75,000 population), it's a bit easier, but can still be competitive. Small town lawyers have figured out that DUIs are for the most part easy money. It's a turnkey operation. I used to effectively net $2,000 an hour when I worked at the main DUI firm in my region. But it also took my boss 15 years to reach that point, and he only ever became the premiere DUI lawyer because few other attorneys were interested in DUIs as their primary source of income. Now that same small market is flooded and there are at least a dozen competitors.

If I could do it over, I would have started as a PD (not a contract one), gotten 20 trials under my belt, then moved to a more prestigious DUI firm, built up my name, and then branched out.