by jamison on July 27, 2010
Anyone who has ever visited the Internet is now familiar with the large number of videotapes capturing police officers running amok on hapless citizens. A couple of weeks ago, for example, I posted a video of the Toronto woman being arrested for blowing bubbles in the general direction of the man who has now become known as the “Bubbles” cop. I have not posted some of the more graphic and disturbing videos; for example, one of a bicyclist being run down by a police cruiser or the man who is now virtually brain dead after being slammed into a concrete wall. And, of course, there is always that most famous video, the one that captured the beating of Rodney King.
While D.C. undoubtedly has its own share of overzealous law enforcement personnel whose misdeeds will eventually find their way onto the Internet, our nation’s capital also has a more unique problem. With the many monuments and other tourist destinations, there have to be more cameras out on the street per capita than in any other city. Following the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and with all three branches of our government situated in the city, there are also a lot of security concerns. It is therefore no surprise that innocent people toting cameras often come into conflict with overzealous law enforcement personnel.
The Washington Post reported yesterday on one case in which a Federal Protective Service officer accosted a D.C. woman for attempting to photograph the Department of Transportation headquarters. The woman noted that she was on a public street and that a photograph of the same building was featured on the Department’s website. When the officer told her it was illegal to photograph federal buildings, she asked him what law he was referring to. The officer informed her that he was citing Title 18 of the U.S. Code and I guarantee he said it in that low, serious way that conveys such authority. Although you have to give the officer credit for knowing the correct number, Title 18 is the name of the entire body of U.S. criminal law. And there is no such law within that vast collection of offenses.
The right to take photographs in public places has always been protected by the First Amendment. Even with enhanced security concerns following 9/11, it still is. To their credit, a number of law enforcement agencies have recently reiterated this right. Last year, for example, the New York City police department issued a directive to all officers reminding them that photography is “rarely unlawful” and that officers have no right to demand to see photos or to delete them. The problem, according to the Post, is that these policies don’t always filter down to the over zealous officer on the street.
In 1968, my grandmother was visiting Prague when the Soviet tanks marched in. My grandmother watched in horror from her tour bus as Russian soldiers gunned down innocent citizens on the street. A Russian soldier spotted her through the window with her camera at the ready. He boarded the bus and opened my grandmother’s camera so that the film was exposed.
Clearly, we are not the Soviet Union or one of its satellite states, and it is good news that law enforcement agencies are aware of the problem and have been trying to minimize officer misconduct. But perhaps more is needed.
I have always wondered who could possibly watch all the photographs D.C. tourists take during their stay here. One remedy I suggest is that offending officers be required to participate in a photograph-watching service offered by the city. Tourists could bring all of their photographs to a central location at the end of their trip and have a captive audience of offending officers ooh and aah at every photograph. The service could help promote tourism in our city. Participating officers might also learn a little bit more about both the people who visit our city and the city itself. Finally, you know for sure that the families and friends of the tourists back home would be eternally grateful to us.
by jamison on July 23, 2010
I was in contact this morning with a former colleague at the Philadelphia public defender’s office who eventually plans to go into private practice herself and who tells me she has always been impressed by my willingness to take the plunge. But, she told me, she has no clue about how you go about bringing in new clients. Below is the perspective of someone who has been doing this for less than a year. My approach is still a work in progress. I am always open to suggestions.
I should first note that I don’t do any paid advertising. I am not opposed to it. I know that sometimes you need to spend money to make money and all of that. It’s just that I have tried it, it hasn’t worked for me, and I eventually decided it wasn’t worth the investment.
Last winter, for example, I spent $100 or so on an advertisement in the Washington City Paper that appeared for three months both on-line and in the hardcopy version available on the newsstands. The ad generated a single phone call from a jurisdiction in which I am not licensed to practice. I also spent $147 a month for three months to appear as one of three lawyers at the top of the Avvo DWI/DUI page for Washington, D.C. That investment generated zero calls.
That said, the best way to develop a steady stream of clients, as everyone knows, is to develop a solid referral base. I checked on the criminal defense lawyers I respected in Philadelphia and found that not a single one of them seemed to do any type of advertising at all. They don’t need to. Referrals generate more clients than they can handle.
Most clients with enough money to hire lawyer will either already have a lawyer or will at least know a lawyer who can make the referral. Referrals also tend to be good clients. Because you have already been endorsed (pre-approved) by someone they know and trust, they are favorably disposed towards you even before they have met you. They are serious, and there seems to be very little of the tire-kicking that some lawyers complain about. In fact, some of my best clients have come in by this route, bringing with them some very interesting cases. Thank you to the lawyers who have made these referrals. I have also gotten one client through the Legal Referral Service of Bar Association and have recently signed up a similar referral service run by the Virginia State Bar. We’ll see.
While I hope to eventually base my practice entirely on referrals, I am still relatively new to the D.C. criminal defense arena. Still working to develop my reputation and referral network after only nine months of solo practice here in D.C., I am not there yet. As a result, I continue to rely on this combined website/blog to bring in new clients.
I know there are many criminal defense lawyers who scoff at this way of bringing in business. All I can say is that it works for me. I don’t tend to get complicated or serious cases. It’s hard to believe, for example, that a person charged with a very serious crime would hire a lawyer off the Internet. But the misdemeanor DWI/DUI, assault, and theft cases I have secured this way have gotten me into court. They also pay the bills. And I have liked all the clients I have gotten this way. Once we start working together on a case, it is irrelevant where the client came from.
(I should note that I have not spent a single cent on any of the private legal referral services or firms promising, in exchange for a hefty fee, to improve your website’s Google ranking. While there may be some lawyers who swear by these services, I don’t see the value.)
Finally, I am still waiting to get onto the panel of lawyers in D.C. approved to take court-appointed cases. I missed the deadline for applying for this panel by just a couple of months upon relocating back to D.C. last year, and I am told that the panel will not be reopening until next fall or winter. The D.C. court system pays court-appointed lawyers very well, and there are many lawyers in D.C. who do nothing but court-appointed work.
While I hope to eventually get on the panel as a way to get more experience and to even out my flow of income, I will continue to emphasize the retained work. The pay is better, and clients seem to prefer services they have paid for. Such clients also tend to cooperate more with you in preparing their defense.
A boss once told me that the reward for good work is more work. We’ll see if I can be that lucky.
