The Georgia Court of Appeals today limited the application of the so-called " Rycroft defense" in workers' compensation cases. Put most simply, the Rycroft defense allowed an employer to escape any responsibility for a work injury where the employee had knowingly and willfully made a false representation about a prior injury, the employer relied upon that injury and hired the employee as a result of that reliance, and there is a causal injury between the false representation and the work injury. Today, in McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc., et al. , case no. A24A1422 (Ga.App. 2025), the employee had undisputedly failed to inform the employer of a prior injury to the same body part she injured in this case. The State Board found that her first injury, on June 11, 2021, was barred by the Rycroft defense. Following the June 11, 2021 back injury, but prior to returning to work, the claimant informed her supervisor both of the prior injury and her belief that the June 11, 2021 injury had aggravated it. Despite this knowledge, the employer returned her to work in the same job, on September 9, 2021, approximately two months after the accident. She then suffered a second on-the-job injury on September 14, 2021. So the timeline is roughly as follows: July 16, 2012 -- pre-employment injury due to a four-wheeler accident Late 2020 -- claimant begins work for employer and fails to disclose four-wheeler accident or injuries on post-hire questionnaire June 16, 2021 -- first injury at work September 9, 2021 -- claimant, who has now informed employer of both the July 16, 2012 injury and her belief the June 16, 2021 injury aggravated it, returns to work September 14, 2021 -- claimant suffers second injury The only issue on appeal was whether the second injury on September 14, 2021, after the employer was notified of the pre-employment injury and returned her to work anyway, was barred by the Rycroft defense. The employer argued, and the State Board of Workers' Compensation held, that it was. The McKay Court reversed that finding today. The McKay Court reasoned that: The common law underpinnings of the Rycroft defense — theories of fraud and fraudulent inducement to contract — require that a party rely on the false representation to his detriment, and that the reliance be justified. In the fraudulent-inducement-to-contract context, a party’s failure to rescind or repudiate the agreement after learning of the fraudulent representation acts as a waiver of that defense. By analogy, Inalfa’s willingness to retain McKay in the assembly operator position, after learning of her prior back injury and false representation about it, waives its right to use the Rycroft defense to deny McKay workers’ compensation benefits for the subsequent injury she suffered. The Court thus found the second, September 14, 2021 injury to be compensable. This is a victory for injured workers in the State of Georgia. If allowed to stand, the State Board's ruling would have essentially meant that employers can return employees to work, knowing in full they had a pre-employment injury, and yet never have to pay them workers' compensation benefits if they are injured. The ruling turned the Rycroft case on its head, as the Court of Appeals rightly found, by taking the fraud and reliance elements out of consideration and rendering the Rycroft defense a punitive measure rather than a remedial measure. That is, the State Board saw fit to punish the claimant for not disclosing the prior injury, rather than remediating the damage done to the employer by the failure to disclose. But Rycroft was never meant to be punitive -- it was intended to apply contract principles to the employer/employee relationship such that the employer could not be induced to hire someone who was prone to injury when that person knowingly and willfully failed to disclose the injury after being asked. We know this because the Rycroft case actually requires the employer to ask. The Rycroft Court held that an employee may not falsely respond to a questionnaire given by the employer in order to determine suitability to do the job. It did not state, or imply, that the employee has an affirmative responsibility to outline each and every injury she has ever suffered, or to disclose potential disabilities. The employer has to ask. There are many and varied reasons why this is the case, and the Rycroft Court spelled them out. Suffice it to say, it was never intended to give employers a free pass to continue to employ workers infinitely with absolutely no risk that they will ever have to pay for a work injury. The defense is intended to apply to give a remedy to an employer who was unaware of a previous injury. It was never intended to protect an employer who became aware, and the McKay Court rightly held as much.

How many times have we heard, in the media, movies, television or just in casual conversation, about the lawyer that "got his client off on a technicality." Generally, what this means is "I think that guy was guilty but he ended up being acquitted (or perhaps pled his charges down)." This is not to say there is no such thing as unfair favors, nepotism, corruption, etc. Certainly there are clients who get favorable treatment based on who they are and who they know, and certainly there are corrupt prosecutors and judges and the like. But for the most part, prosecutors and judges and defense attorneys alike are honest and doing their jobs, and so those cases are very rare, and such favors rarely result in a truly guilty person going free after committing a heinous crime. TECHNICALITY OR DESIGN? Our Constitution has safeguards built in for a reason. When an officer stops someone and lacks probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and then unlawfully searches that person's car and finds drugs or other contraband, it is not a "technicality" that the person is set free and not convicted of a crime. It is exactly how our Constitution is supposed to work. When a case is pled down to a lesser offense because the state lacks the evidence to convict of the offense charged, that is not a "technicality," it is justice. When a minor is interrogated outside the presence of their parents or attorneys, or when a person is interrogated without being apprised of their rights, or when a vehicle or home is searched with neither a proper warrant nor a valid exception to a warrant, it is not a "technicality" to refuse to convict the accused, even if those things result in a confession, or evidence of a crime. The police are not allowed to violate the Constitution. Most of the time they are well trained and know that. Some officers reason that if they can get by with skirting those lines, a "guilty" person will be "taken off the streets." And too often people cheer this mentality rather than rightly being skeptical of it. Fewer officers outright lie, or flagrantly break the rules in order to secure a conviction, but that happens as well. When Thomas Jefferson famously said "it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned," this is what he was talking about. It is not just to allow rules to be broken to "get the bad guy." It is certainly not a "technicality." It is an abuse of the justice system and an affront to our entire way of life. What we casually refer to as "technicalities" are actually safeguards, put in place by the Founders, the courts, Congress and state lawmakers in order to ensure fair play. When you are charged with a crime, the government has the burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the government violates your rights in the process of gathering evidence, by requiring you to incriminate yourself, or searching your home or property without justification, the law punishes them and refuses to allow a conviction, even if the misconduct uncovered evidence of guilt. So I suppose "technicality" is right, in that "technically" the government cheated the system. But I do not wish to live in a country where the government can get away with doing that, so I contend that "getting someone off on a technicality" is a myth.

I was able to obtain a dismissal recently on two counts, one for disorderly conduct and the other for resisting arrest. I thought it might be instructive to discuss when, and how, speech can be considered "disorderly conduct" under Georgia Law. Without getting into the details too far, in order to protect my client's privacy, the conduct at issue here was offensive speech, specifically, cursing at a police officer. Here is how we were able to obtain a dismissal of all of the charges, and my thoughts on the charges and how one should conduct one's self. What conduct is disorderly? In this case, there were arguably two provisions at issue. The first is the state law prohibiting disorderly conduct, which has many factors, but the relevant portion states that one commits the offense of disorderly conduct when one: "Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person's presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words.'" The second is a municipal code section which states in pertinent part that one may not: "Use any type of profane or lewd language in a public place that is offensive to another, causes another to become outraged and thus creates a turmoil." Note that both sections include more than just bad language. The state statute indicates such language must constitute "fighting words," and the municipal code section indicates the language must "cause another to become outraged and thus create a turmoil," which in the real world amounts to the same legal standard. It is not enough that one curses at a police officer, or insults the officer. The language must be such as would cause that person to react in a violent or tumultuous manner. To whom does the law apply? The other instance in this case that made it somewhat different is that one person involved was a police officer. There was no allegation or even suggestion that others heard the offensive speech. Police officers, in general are held to a higher standard, as our Court of Appeals has said, relying on United States Supreme Court precedent: "Lastly, although the State argues that 'there should not be a different standard when opprobrious and abusive language is directed toward a police officer,' the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal courts have indicated that the fighting-words exception to constitutionally protected speech 'requires a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer.' This is because a 'properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'' Additionally, as the Supreme Court has further explained, 'the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.' Indeed, the freedom of individuals verbally to 'oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.'" Knowles v. State , 340 Ga.App. 274; 797 S.E.2d 197 (Ga.App. 2017) (citations omitted). This is perhaps more obvious when considering the facts of this case. When it comes to whether the language at issue was "threatening" language, my client was unarmed, whereas the officer in question had a firearm, a Taser, and pepper spray, along with other officers present or close by. If anyone should have felt threatened, it was my client. Finally, the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that "fighting words" is not so much a function of the specific words used, but whether the person on the receiving end of them considers them sufficient to provoke violence or breach of the peace: "OCGA § 16–11–39 (a) (1) does not reach any, let alone a substantial amount of, constitutionally protected conduct. As mentioned previously, a person may only be found guilty of disorderly conduct under OCGA § 16–11–39 (a) (1) based on allegedly tumultuous conduct when he or she 'acts in a ... tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person's life, limb, or health." The statute on its face contains no prohibition against any particular message being communicated, and it makes clear that the level of 'tumultuous' behavior necessary to give rise to a sustainable charge must involve acts that would place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety. In this sense, it could be argued that the statute applies only to physical 'acts' that do not implicate speech at all." Freeman v. State , 302 Ga. 181; 805 S.E.2d 845 (2017). On a side note, 2017 was apparently a banner year for free speech in Georgia. So I can cuss out police officers with impunity, right? Not so fast. First, the fact that the words in the above cases, like the words in my case, did not amount to "fighting words," does not in any way mean that other words might not. Use of racial slurs, threats, comments about the officer's family, or other such words might lead reviewing courts to apply the statute or municipal code differently. As a general rule, it is best not to go around cursing at anyone, let alone someone who can arrest you and put you in jail, however temporarily. Second, even if you are Constitutionally protected, my client had to be arrested, go to jail, bond out, and hire me to get out of this predicament. Whether he could sue the municipality in question and win is perhaps a legitimate question. What he would get out of that is perhaps the bigger question. You can sue someone and "win," yet still "lose" in the sense that it costs you more to litigate than you can possibly recover. So the fact that my client did not commit a crime does not mean his conduct was helpful, or worth the trouble. I believe he would be the first to tell you that. Third, let's suppose the prosecutor in question was disinclined to dismiss the charges. My client would have to stand trial, risking a conviction and sentence on both charges. If convicted, he would have to appeal. By the time this case wound its way to the state Supreme Court (I'd like to think this case would not rise to the Federal level), we are no longer talking about thousands of dollars, but tens of thousands of dollars. And while I think the dismissal of the charges is a good indication that he would probably win, at least on appeal if not at trial, once you go before the judge there are no guarantees. So why was there no conviction on resisting arrest? Good question! In this case, there is no question my client resisted arrest. However, the arrest in question was for disorderly conduct, a crime he did not commit, and which the officers lacked probable cause to believe he committed. It is not a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. Because the unlawful arrest led to the charge of resisting, that charge could not stand either. So you think it's okay to swear at police officers? Not at all! I don't blame the officer in this case for being upset at the language used. I don't blame her for thinking this might be disorderly conduct (everyone makes mistakes). Police officers have a tough job, and as noted above, are held to a higher standard than you or I. It's not an easy thing to listen to someone verbally accost you and have to just swallow your pride and take it. But that, ultimately, is what the law required in this case, on these facts. The fact that something is not a crime does not mean it is advisable. We all have bad days. My client had a bad day when he was arrested. The officer had a bad day when she made an unlawful arrest on charges that were ultimately dismissed in the interests of justice. The city had a bad day in that it had to bring charges, house my client, process bond, and ultimately have a prosecutor paid by the city come in and dismiss the charges, so a lot of time and money were wasted. But in the end, justice was done. I would like to think everyone can call that a good day. Each of us is better than our bad days. But if you have a bad day, know your rights so you can hopefully keep it from getting any worse.

Navigating Your DUI Defense: How an Attorney Can Help Facing a DUI charge can be overwhelming and frightening. The consequences of a conviction can be severe, impacting your driving privileges, finances, and even your freedom. However, with the right legal support, you can navigate this challenging process more effectively. In this post, we'll explore how an attorney can assist you in your DUI defense, outlining the steps involved and the critical role they play in protecting your rights. Understanding the DUI Charge Before delving into how an attorney can help, it’s essential to understand what a DUI charge entails. A DUI (Driving Under the Influence) occurs when a person is accused of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Each state has its own laws regarding DUI, including legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits, penalties for first-time and repeat offenders, and procedures for handling DUI arrests. Navigating through the charges, understanding the possible outcomes, and understanding the consequences of the decisions you make after a DUI arrest can be a daunting task. The Initial Consultation The first step after a DUI arrest is contacting and meeting or having a phone consultation with a DUI attorney. This initial consultation is crucial. During this meeting, I will: Assess Your Case: I will review the details of your arrest, including how the stop was conducted, the breathalyzer or blood tests administered, and any other relevant evidence. I will also determine whether you are facing an immediate license suspension for refusing a breath, blood or urine test, or for having a result showing your blood alcohol content (BAC) was over .08. It is important that you consult an attorney immediately if you are facing a license suspension for refusal or for testing over .08 BAC. You only have 30 days to appeal this suspension. Explain Your Rights: Understanding your rights is vital. I will clarify what you are entitled to during the legal process, including your right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. I will advise you of potential defenses you may have, and what actions you may take in order to preserve your driving privilege and possibly avoid a conviction for DUI. Discuss Potential Outcomes: I will explain the possible outcomes based on your specific circumstances, including plea deals, diversion programs, or trial. Building Your Defense Once you’ve retained me, I will begin the process of building your defense. This involves several key steps: Investigating the Arrest: I will gather evidence related to your arrest. This can include reviewing police reports, dashcam footage, and witness statements. I will look for any procedural errors that could weaken the prosecution’s case. Challenging the Evidence: If you submitted to a breathalyzer or blood test, I may challenge the accuracy of those tests. This involves a number of steps, including examining the chain of custody, ensuring proper procedures were followed, and ensuring the police had probable cause to request or obtain a warrant for chemical testing. Exploring Legal Defenses: Depending on the specifics of your case, I may explore various defenses. Common defenses include challenging the legality of the traffic stop, questioning the reliability of field sobriety tests, or demonstrating that you were not impaired at the time of driving. Navigating Court Proceedings If your case goes to court, having an experienced attorney by your side is invaluable. I will: Represent You in Court: I will represent you at every court appearance, from the initial arraignment to the final plea date or trial. If a trial is necessary, I will present your case to the judge or jury on your behalf. Negotiate on Your Behalf: In many cases, I can negotiate a plea deal with the prosecution. This can result in reduced charges or reduced penalties. Provide Support: The emotional toll of facing a DUI charge can be significant. I do not only provide legal guidance, but also reassurance throughout the process. Post-Conviction Support If you are convicted, I can still be of service. I will help you understand the consequences and navigate options such as: Appeals: If there were legal errors in your trial, I can help you file an appeal. License Reinstatement: Depending on the laws in your state, you may face license suspension. I will guide you through the process of obtaining a hardship permit, if available, or complying with the terms of your suspension. Counseling and Programs: Many jurisdictions require alcohol education or treatment programs after a DUI. I will recommend suitable programs and ensure you meet any requirements set by the court. Post-release Supervision: I will assist you in completing the terms of your probation so you can terminate probation as soon as possible. Conclusion A DUI charge doesn’t have to define your future. With the assistance of a knowledgeable attorney, you can navigate the complexities of the legal system, protect your rights, and work toward the best possible outcome. If you find yourself facing a DUI charge, consider reaching out to me as soon as possible.

5 Common Mistakes to Avoid When Filing a Workers’ Compensation Claim Introduction Filing a workers’ compensation claim can be a complex and daunting process, especially when you’re recovering from an injury. Even minor missteps can have significant consequences for the outcome of your claim. As a workers’ compensation attorney, I’ve seen firsthand how certain mistakes can jeopardize an otherwise valid claim. In this blog post, we’ll discuss five common mistakes to avoid when filing a workers’ compensation claim and offer guidance on how to navigate the process effectively. 1. Failing to Report the Injury Promptly Mistake: One of the most common errors workers make is not reporting their injury immediately to their employer. Delays in reporting can lead to complications with your claim. Why It’s a Mistake: Georgia law requires you to report your injury within 30 days of the accident. Failing to do so can result in denial of your claim, and can also create complications in proving that your injury is work-related. What to Do Instead: Report your injury to your employer as soon as possible after the incident. Ensure that you complete any necessary paperwork and keep a copy for your records. Prompt reporting helps establish a clear connection between your injury and your work environment, which is crucial for a successful claim. 2. Not Seeking Medical Attention Right Away Mistake: Another common mistake is delaying medical treatment after a work-related injury. Some workers might try to tough it out or assume that their injury isn’t serious enough to warrant immediate care. Why It’s a Mistake: Delaying medical attention can not only worsen your condition but also make it harder to link your injuries to the workplace incident. Insurance companies may argue that your injuries were not severe or that they were caused by something other than the work accident. What to Do Instead: Seek medical attention as soon as possible after your injury. A prompt medical evaluation will provide documentation of your injuries and treatment, which is essential for your claim. Follow your doctor’s advice and keep detailed records of all medical visits and treatments. 3. Providing Inaccurate or Incomplete Information Mistake: Providing inaccurate or incomplete information about your injury, work conditions, or medical history can hurt your claim. Why It’s a Mistake: Inaccurate information can lead to questions about your credibility and the validity of your claim. Insurance adjusters may use inconsistencies or omissions to challenge your claim or reduce the amount of benefits you receive. What to Do Instead: Ensure that all information you provide to your employer, medical professionals, and the insurance company is accurate and complete. Double-check forms and reports for errors and ensure that all relevant details are included. If you’re unsure about any aspect of your claim, consult with a workers’ compensation attorney. 4. Accepting the First Settlement Offer Without Legal Advice Mistake: Insurance companies often extend initial settlement offers that may seem appealing but are typically lower than what you’re entitled to. Accepting the first offer without proper legal advice is a common mistake. Why It’s a Mistake: Initial offers may not fully account for future medical expenses, lost wages, or long-term impacts of your injury. Once you accept a settlement, it is almost impossible to obtain additional compensation from your employer and its insurer if your needs change. What to Do Instead: Before accepting any settlement offer, consult with a workers’ compensation attorney. An experienced lawyer can evaluate the offer, consider your future needs, and negotiate on your behalf to ensure that you receive a fair settlement. 5. Failing to Keep Detailed Records Mistake: Not maintaining detailed records of your injury, medical treatment, and communication with insurance companies is a mistake that can negatively impact your claim. Why It’s a Mistake: Detailed records are crucial for documenting the extent of your injuries, the treatment you’ve received, and the impact on your life. Lack of proper documentation can make it difficult to prove the full extent of your damages. What to Do Instead: Keep thorough records of all aspects of your claim, including medical records, bills, and correspondence with your employer and the insurance company. Document your daily symptoms, treatment progress, and any related expenses. This information will support your claim and help demonstrate the severity of your injury. Conclusion Avoiding these common mistakes can significantly improve your chances of a successful workers’ compensation claim. By promptly reporting your injury, seeking immediate medical attention, providing accurate information, consulting with an attorney before accepting any settlement, and keeping detailed records, you can better navigate the complexities of the workers’ compensation process. If you need assistance with your workers’ compensation claim or have questions about the process, don’t hesitate to reach out. Contact Garner Law Office, P.C. for a free consultation, and let us help you ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the benefits you deserve.

A frequent comment I get from workers' compensation inquirers is "I don't know if I even need a lawyer for this." And often, they are right. But how do you know? Often, a case where a lawyer should have been hired, but was not, is far more difficult and far less likely to end with the client treated fairly as compared to a case where a lawyer was hired from the start. A few tips on how to determine whether you need an attorney. First, what kind of job do you have? A career firefighter or police officer, teacher, career government employee, or a highly paid white collar worker, may value their career far more highly than whatever value exists in a workers' compensation claim. In general, these types of workers will need to consider hiring a lawyer when the employer or insurer is not paying for something they should, delaying or refusing treatment, or otherwise being grossly unfair with the claimant, or if the injury is so serious that it will threaten your ability to return to the job in any event. If the employer and insurer is paying for all of your medical treatment, paying you for your time out of work, and working with you on return to work issues such that you are able to work within your restrictions, and the injury is such that you are likely to be able to return to your normal job, hiring an attorney is probably not going to improve your standing with your employer, and is unlikely to result in you getting more benefits than you are currently receiving. That does not mean you should not consult with an attorney. It just means any good attorney is going to be honest with you and tell you whether they can help you or not. And if they cannot, they will suggest to you that your job is more valuable than the case. Second, what type of injury do you have? I have clients who have relatively minor injuries, but the claim is denied and the employment is not as "career" oriented as those mentioned above, and I am always happy to assist with that sort of case as long as I can provide some value to the client. I also have clients with terrible, catastrophic, life altering injuries who need my assistance no matter what type of job they have. In general, the worse you are injured, the more the workers' compensation system is going to shortchange you. The system is designed as a compromise, and while a horrific injury is objectively more valuable than a minor injury, the system is not really designed to make you whole. When you get a more significant settlement, but you will never be able to work again, or perhaps will have to change to a lower paying profession due to your injury, the fact that your settlement was bigger is cold comfort. That is why with more severe injuries, it is imperative to get legal assistance to maximize your recovery. Third, what is your goal? If your goal is to get a lot of money for your minor injury and keep your job, that is something the workers' compensation system is not really designed to accomplish for you. If your goal is to return to work after your injury and resume your normal job, an attorney may or may not be able to help, but an honest attorney will give you all of the pros and cons of obtaining legal counsel. If your goal is to maximize your recovery so you can transition to another line of work or ensure you are able to get continued care for an ongoing, permanent disability, an attorney can certainly help you with that. When in doubt, call us. I often turn down cases and even advise people not to hire me or another attorney because it does not make sense to hire an attorney at this stage. You will get an honest opinion about your case, and the reassurance that I will not have you sign a fee agreement only to leave you worse off than if you had not hired me.

When charged with a crime, sometimes it's easy to assume that you have plenty of time to hire an attorney and defend the case. Sometimes, especially with a traffic citation, even a serious one like a DUI, you may even think you can handle it yourself. Be wary. The 30-day letter: If you're wondering what a 30-day letter is, let me suggest that this is why you should consider retaining an attorney. Sometimes with a DUI, you only have the underlying charge to deal with. However, in some cases, the arresting officer decides you did not voluntarily comply with a request to provide chemical analysis of your breath or blood. This is called "implied consent." As part of the State of Georgia's licensing scheme for drivers, you implicitly consent to have your breath or blood tested if the officer has probable cause to ask for it. If you refuse, or if the officer merely claims you refused , then your license can be suspended for 12 months. There is no temporary or hardship permit available. You will be without driving privileges for 12 months. It's okay, though, because I did not refuse a test: Oh, you agreed to blow in a breathalyzer, right? You didn't refuse. So, of course, this has nothing to do with you! Don't believe it. I have multiple cases in my office right now where the client blew in a breathalyzer at the scene, was not offered the opportunity to give blood or blow in a breathalyzer at the jail, and they were still submitted to the Department of Driver's Services as a refusal. The breathalyzer at the jail is the one that counts for implied consent, not the portable one on the side of the roadway. A blood test at the jail is also valid. Refuse either of those, and you can expect your license to be suspended. But the more important point is, even if you did not refuse, if the officer claims you did, you have 30 days to contest his false claim or you will lose your license. There are not very many good options if you do not appeal the administrative suspension, so get in touch with a lawyer immediately if you have been charged with a DUI. Do not assume your license will not be suspended simply because you agreed to blow in a breathalyzer on the roadside, or even at the jail. You have 30 days to appeal, or you will serve the full 12 month suspension. The Administrative License Suspension Hearing: This is not your trial for your DUI case, and really has nothing to do with the DUI charge itself. Let's say you refused to blow in a breathalyzer, and you received notice from the officer that your license is being suspended. If that happens, the "30-day letter" is just a notice to the Department of Driver's Services that you would like to appeal the suspension. Even if the officer had probable cause to stop you and request the test, you can appear at the ALS hearing and seek to have the suspension dismissed. Sometimes the officer doesn't show. Other times the officer does show and you may agree to plead guilty to DUI or a lesser charge in exchange for having the suspension dropped. In either case, you save your license until the DUI is adjudicated. If you plead guilty to DUI in court, there is a mandatory suspension, but you can get a temporary permit, which remember, you cannot if you let the implied consent suspension take effect. If you plead to a lesser charge, often there is no suspension at all. Thus, the biggest threat to your driving privileges is not the DUI charge itself. It is the administrative suspension of your license for refusing to submit to chemical testing of your breath or blood. And again, even if you did not refuse, often the officer will claim you did and submit the case to DDS for a suspension. So contact a lawyer immediately to preserve your driving privileges. The police are not your friend: Police officers are good people, usually seeking to make society safe for all of us, and we respect them and appreciate the work they do. This is not a statement on the moral character of police officers. However, they are not there to be your buddy. They are not there to be honest with you. Their sole mission when they charge you with a DUI is to collect enough evidence to convict you. Any honest police officer will tell you this. But they will probably not tell you that on the side of the road when they are conducting a DUI investigation. Sometimes this is obvious. I cannot count the times a client has said "the officer was a real jerk," and then we find out the officer claims my client refused when they actually did not. Every group has its bad apples. But other times, the officer is real nice, even chatty or friendly. Most police officers are not going to lie in order to obtain a conviction. But some will. You don't have the luxury of picking which one you get. So when you are charged, do not think that just because the officer said he's trying to do you a favor, that means you can trust him. Police officers don't exist to do favors for those they think have been driving under the influence. They are there to arrest them and collect sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. Do not go it alone: The penalties for DUI are too severe to take lightly. Proceeding without an attorney is taking it lightly. If you have been charged with a DUI, call us at (770) 575-2747 today to discuss your case.

I am an attorney. I represent clients for a living. That means I have to do this in order to earn money to feed my family. But if that were the only reason I did it, I would lead an empty life indeed. Being an attorney is not merely my job. It is my vocation. From the Latin vocare , which means "to call or summon," a vocation is a calling, something we do because it fulfills a higher purpose. That is fundamentally different from a job, which as we understand it in modern society is something of a utilitarian venture. A job is something you do because you have to. A vocation is something you do because you believe doing it furthers the greater good. My role in society is to help those who have been harmed, defend those who have been accused, and guide those who are mired in our often byzantine legal system, so that they can come out on the other side of that experience better off. Attorneys get a bad reputation in society. Personal injury attorney are often subjected to slurs like "ambulance chaser." Criminal defense attorneys are often accused of using legal technicalities to allow guilty criminals to continue to roam the streets unchecked. Neither of these is true. It is true that a very small number of personal injury attorneys are a detriment to society, bringing claims that lack merit to force settlements that are undeserved. It is also true that a very small number of criminal defense attorneys are a detriment to society, trying to find loopholes to ensure the guilty are not punished, and even blaming the innocent for being the victim of a crime. But neither of those things is true of the vast majority of us. Imagine instead a world where, having been injured through the fault of another person, you are at the mercy of an insurance company, which has a profit motive to pay as little as possible for your injuries. Imagine your valid claims are denied, your medical treatment delayed, or your income benefits withheld simply because the insurance company wants to minimize its exposure. Now imagine that insurance company has a mechanism to avoid its own risk by setting its premiums in such a way to pass on the majority of that risk to its insureds. And in auto accident and worker's compensation cases, further imagine that people are actually required by law to purchase the very insurance product that provides you little risk and much control over what may be charged. Would it surprise you that this is actually the world we live in? Or imagine a world where you have been accused of a crime. Perhaps you did something, but not what you are charged with. Or perhaps you did nothing wrong. Imagine the police have the right to put you in jail, take away your freedom, suspend your driving privileges, cause your insurance rates to go up, solely on the basis that the officer believes you committed a crime. I'd wager every person reading this has at least one story to tell about the cop that pulled you over and was not fair with you, accused you of things you didn't do, and cited you for crimes you did not commit. Imagine further that the Constitution provides you certain protections, but unlike those contained in a Miranda warning, they do not have to tell you about those protections. For example, imagine they can authoritatively ask permission to search your car, and if you acquiesce, even if you only do so because you are intimidated or they threaten to hold you up while obtaining a warrant, you cannot challenge the Constitutionality of the search. Or imagine the police can actually lie to you in order to get your confession to certain things, and then use those things against you (for example, perhaps they suggest your passenger has already told them you've been drinking). Would it surprise you to know that's also the world we live in? I don't write these things to suggest the world is so unfair and we should alter it to ensure that people who are injured have no need of demonstrating their injuries or the cause of them, or that criminals cannot be prosecuted for crimes they actually commit. This is not a lament so much as an observation. We live in a world that is unfair. The government and large corporations and insurers have more money than you and I do, and they spend that money to achieve their preferred ends. I also do not mean demean insurers or those who work for them. Insurance agents, claims personnel and others are just doing their job. But make no mistake, they are not looking out for those who file claims. Their loyalty is to the company they work for. They are good people who represent one side in a dispute. The same is true of police and prosecutors. They are not out to get you for the most part, and while they make mistakes, they are also not actively trying to ruin the lives of people who are charged with crimes. In most cases, they would love nothing more than to see you return to society better off than you were when they pulled you over to begin with. They, too, have a vocation. I do write it to suggest that the next time someone tells you how awful lawyers are, perhaps consider the good we do. The old joke is "everyone hates lawyers until they need one." Maybe as a society we could begin to work to soften the first part of that joke. Most of us are doing no more than fulfilling our calling. And I am grateful to be able to do it. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a transcendent lesson is taught. Famously, and in my case perhaps ironically, the "teacher of the law" asked "who is my neighbor?" The lesson was abundantly clear. Three men found a man lying on the side of the road that day, a priest, a Levite and a Samaritan, and only one, the Samaritan, the enemy, the one who was at enmity with the man lying in the roadway, was the one who cared for his neighbor. The one who, in the words of the "teacher of the law" "showed mercy to him." This is what vocation is about, and why I consider myself blessed to have the one I do. Many of my clients come to me with negative views of lawyers. I hope I am able to serve them in such a way as to soften their heart. Many more come to me with problems that leave others with negative feelings about them. Maybe they have been charged with a DUI, or been injured at work and are being viewed as someone who is faking or exaggerating an injury for profit, or were in a car wreck and are trying to recover damages and viewed as someone who wants to profit from an injury. Whatever the case, I always treat my clients with compassion and empathy. We are in this together. When you need me, even if you don't like people like me very much, or especially if others don't like you very much, I am here to help. It is part of my calling. And it is one I am extraordinarily fortunate to be able to fulfill.

If you've never hired a lawyer before, it can sometimes be difficult to know what to expect. And the truth is, often what you can expect will differ depending on the type of lawyer you hire. In my practice, I am fortunate to help people who need assistance navigating difficult times in their lives. This means my clients are rarely calling me during the best times in their lives. This post will outline what I consider to be good legal service and competent representation, as well as the simple day-to-day handling of a particular case. With clients who have suffered an injury, whether it is an injury sustained at work or in an accident due to someone else's negligence, the first thing you should expect from your lawyer is compassion. I only take cases that I believe have merit. The reason for this is simple. I do not get paid on personal injury or workers' compensation cases unless I recover compensation. This means that if I take the so-called "frivolous" cases you often hear about from people who do not like attorneys very much, then I am doing two things wrong. First, I am putting work into cases that I have little chance of ever seeing a reasonable fee on. The second is I am taking time away from other cases that do have merit. When you come to us with a personal injury or workers' compensation claim, you can expect that I believe in your case, or I would not agree to take on the representation. Because of this, you can also expect compassion and empathy. We will treat you with respect and we will understand that you are suffering, and we will do our best to get you the medical care you need to alleviate your suffering. We will also do our best to recover the compensation to which the law entitles you. With clients accused of traffic offenses or DUI, often our clients have admittedly done something wrong, but perhaps have been accused of more than they actually did. Other times our clients are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. Still other times our clients are innocent of the charges against them. In these cases, the fee is paid up front, so the main part of my job is to accurately assess whether you have been properly charged, educate you about the consequences, and assess the risk of going to trial versus working out a plea bargain. Because I am paid up front, you should expect an honest assessment of the charges against you and an honest evaluation of whether I can help you or not. Often, I get calls from people charged with very minor traffic offenses, who do not need an attorney. I will tell you that. More often, I get calls from people who have been charged with serious traffic offenses. Sometimes, I can be of assistance, and other times I cannot. I always try to honestly assess what I can do to assist, and if I believe there is any question as to whether I believe I can get the charges reduced, I tell potential clients that up front, before a fee is paid. The reason for this is also simple -- I do not want to have a reputation for taking money from people who end up in the same place they would end up if they didn't hire me, but have paid me a fee just to find that out. Sometimes, I tell clients "I am not sure I can help you with this" and they hire me anyway. But I work very hard not to have any surprises for the client once we end up in court. I try not to take a fee from someone unless I can actually improve their situation. Above all, no matter the type of representation you need, you are entitled to honesty, good communication, and a fair assessment of the risks and benefits inherent in your case. My assistant is compassionate and as dedicated to our clients as I am. Since we are the only two people who work at this firm, you can expect that as a team, we will always put your best interests first. We will answer your calls, we will respond to your emails, and we will be sure that you understand the risks and benefits of proceeding with your case versus a settlement or plea bargain. As I've said before, we will treat you like a friend and neighbor. Often, clients with one type of case end up with other legal issues. Some of these we can help with. We can draft a will or power of attorney, or assist you with certain aspects of a personal injury claim such as working out subrogation liens or ensuring medical bills are paid. We can assist you with issues regarding your driving privileges in cases where the charges against you result in a suspension. Other times, clients have legal issues that I am simply not competent to handle. You can expect that I will inform you of that and try to refer you to another attorney who is competent to assist you in that area. Not every lawyer can handle every type of case. An honest lawyer will tell you that instead of trying to get a fee on something he or she is incompetent to handle. What do we expect from you? That is also simple. Good communication, cooperation in obtaining medical records or answering discovery or showing up for court, and a fair approach to the ultimate resolution of your case, whatever type of case you have. We understand our clients are often in stressful situations that are less than ideal. However, your cooperation in the handling of your case is paramount to getting a good result. I do not expect you to blindly follow my advice. I do expect that you will hear me out and let me explain why I believe the approach I suggest is in your best interest. It is for this reason that I do not settle cases before they are ready, and I do not plead out cases without having all the information you need to make a good decision. Ultimately, hiring a lawyer complicates your life. You suddenly find yourself meeting discovery deadlines, having court dates or trial dates, answering questions about intimate details of your life in a deposition, and otherwise doing a lot of things that may seem disruptive to your life. The good news is, you do not have to do it alone. When you hire me on a matter, your problems related to that matter become my problems. And I will work as hard as I can to navigate you through them so you can get the best result possible.