Lawyer on retainer?

Just something I was thinking about last week.

How many of us have a lawyer on retainer? Or at least consulted with one?

I have an appointment soon, just thought it is something I should have..... just in case.

Jonathan

It's not on your poll, but I don't have one on retainer, but I do have him on speed dial on my cell.

I had the same concern about establishing a professional relationship *before* there was a need to do so, but both of the pre-eminent gun-rights defense lawyers I contacted here in Virginia said there was no need for a retainer, just keep their information on my cell phone and in my wallet.

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

I also just have a lawyer's card in my wallet and his number programmed into my phone. I think the only benefit of having the lawyer on retainer is that he is obligated to take your case. If you simply call the lawyer up, he could turn you away.

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

Click to expand...

Can you point to any evidence of this ever being used against anyone? Many people keep lawyers on retainer at all times for many reasons, not just because they plan on shooting someone.

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

Click to expand...

I'm not buying that argument at all. After seeing police interrogation film, I'm more convinced more than ever.

The jury can easily be explained that we have a fifth amendment right and are entitled to protection. And rather than wait until it's too late, the firearms owner took the time and responsibility to find out what laws are in order to prevent a situation from happening. Explaining that you did it to learn the laws, and not "in case you pull the trigger" can go a long way.

Having a lawyers number is good if you have an agreement. But once you pay an hourly fee and sit down with the guy, you are indeed a client.

I'm seeing my guy soon.

Jonathan

Just set my appointment.

$250.00 is worth it for my peace of mind. Plus, I get to put a list of questions together for answers.

Jonathan

I have the number of more than one attorney in my cell phone.
I consider them friends and people that I can count on if I ever find myself in a tough spot.

I'm a friend of this attorney's daughter.

But you know the old expression, when money changes hands, you're a client!

I figure an hour to ask questions and get answers, as well as keep a card in my wallet, is worth it.

Look at Doutel, Burgess, etc. I'd just rather say from the beginning, "here's my attorney, I'm not saying anything".

It's cheap insurance in my mind!

Jonathan

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

Click to expand...

The jury would never hear anything about when you retained your lawyer, your reason for doing so, or the fees you pay. Those matters are confidential, between you and your attorney, and are protected by the attorney/client privilege. That information nearly always inadmissable.

Rich B said:

Can you point to any evidence of this ever being used against anyone? Many people keep lawyers on retainer at all times for many reasons, not just because they plan on shooting someone.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rich, citing evidence doesn't apply to this one. As I said, this is only my opinion on the topic.

For the same reason I often carry a Kel Tec or J-frame in my pocket instead of my Beretta 92 with a 20-rounder openly on my side. In my opinion, it will look better to a jury should I ever get myself in a bad situation. He was "looking for trouble" or "gun nut" are easy angles for a prosecutor to take against you.

I support everyone's rights to carry whatever and how ever they want, hence my reading of this forum. And also the right to hire an attorney, It's just not part of my strategy.

AGust82 said:

Sorry Rich, citing evidence doesn't apply to this one. As I said, this is only my opinion on the topic.

Click to expand...

IMO, opinions end where 'advice' begins. If you cannot cite any evidence of this, you are putting FUD out there about having a lawyer on your side. Especially when a lawyer just gave you a great argument against your opinion.

Same thing about not carrying a more capable pistol. Your choice, but your reasons are without evidence or basis.

I would be in the same spot if I advised every concealed carrier I came across that their actions are less honest than mine and that they are more likely to be singled out by a prosecutor for not trying to repel crime by openly carrying their firearm and instead, ambushing the criminal. Or that the carelessness and lack of planning shown by not having legal counsel readily available was likely to be used against them by a prosecutor who says they are lazy and careless.

Simple argument on why you carry 20+ rounds. I'm now carrying 2 spare double mags, my choice.

Prosecutor: "Why did you carry such a firearm?".
Me: "I learned from the second responders, law enforcement"
Prosecutor: "Don't you mean first responders"
Me: "I'm the first responder, they show up in time to file the report".

all you need is one juror that has been a victim of a crime, any crime, and you have the one you need.

I'm just saying, there are plenty of arguments that can be made in court...... hence having a decent lawyer at hand!

But, I do appreciate the discussion. Good to hear pros and cons (I just don't agree with this example).

Jonathan

Rich B said:

If you cannot cite any evidence of this, you are putting FUD out there about having a lawyer on your side. Especially when a lawyer just gave you a great argument against your opinion.

Click to expand...

Why are you so hung up on evidence with this? The original premise of this thread is a poll. By definition, an invitation of people's opinions on a particular topic. The only evidence you need of an opinion being expressed is the fact that you just read it. You are free to disagree, but evidence that anything contrary is completely false is impossible to produce. Therefore, there is no evidence to present.

It is my mother-in-law's opinion that she is the only person alive with the intelligence required to raise a child. I don't agree. See how that works?

When I said "I would advise against it", I meant exactly that, in the spirit of this being a poll. If someone asked my opinion whether I think they should pre-hire a lawyer or not, I would advise against it. A person's advise is their opinion of what they think a person should do.

I'm not looking to argue with you for the sake of an argument, and I respect all you do for this cause in Connecticut. But I don't appreciate being attacked because you don't agree with my opinion. People who don't have, or ever plan to have a lawyer on retainer are winning as of this moment.

AGust82 said:

I'm not looking to argue with you for the sake of an argument, and I respect all you do for this cause in Connecticut. But I don't appreciate being attacked because you don't agree with my opinion. People who don't have, or ever plan to have a lawyer on retainer are winning as of this moment.

Click to expand...

To be fair, you made a specific claim that having a lawyer on retainer "may/will look bad to a jury." Upon refutation, you have failed to provide any evidence that a) such information would even be admissible in court, or b) that it could be proven that you retained the lawyer solely for representation in a shooting, or c) that such a prudent move would look bad to a jury. No one's looking for proof, just something more than unsubstantiated advice.

Rich,

FUD= Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or F***** Up Disinformation? Yes, I am serious, google gave me two definitions which fit here. Which were you referring to?

winning..... that's a stretch.

There, we can cite data that those with lawyers at the time of arrest for a situation by and large have a much better chance. Massad Ayoob goes into this in one of his courses.

There is something worse than not having a lawyer, saying ANYTHING! If you say, over and over, "I'm not talking without my lawyer present", that's all that can be brought up in court. If you try to answer the "simple" questions, it's so easy for another officer to (intentional or not) to testify to something entirely different. I've read a ton of cases along that route.

However, we are indeed free to disagree and it is a simple discussion, but I hope you NEVER find yourself needing one (Agust82). There are a ton of transcripts you can read where the outcome is generally not the best. Looking to when you jumped into the discussion, you brought up some examples. Examples, that a lawyer have refuted (and from all I've read correctly so). I would hope you rethink your position based on raw data and case law before you continue on that ideology.

I hope I never need my lawyer, but at least I have one just in case!

Jonathan

thebigsd said:

Rich,

FUD= Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or F***** Up Disinformation? Yes, I am serious, google gave me two definitions which fit here. Which were you referring to?

Click to expand...

Both may be appropriate here, though I don't think the latter would've been meant to be intentional.

Jonathan

AGust82 said:

I'm not looking to argue with you for the sake of an argument, and I respect all you do for this cause in Connecticut. But I don't appreciate being attacked because you don't agree with my opinion. People who don't have, or ever plan to have a lawyer on retainer are winning as of this moment.

Click to expand...

First, you are not being attacked at all. Everyone here is free to debate as they feel necessary. If anything has been 'attacked' it is your argument. That is what happens on forums.

Second, you are giving advice and intermittently calling it opinion. They are not the same thing. Advice being the action of giving information or recommending a course of action.

If I were to give someone information or recommend a course of action to someone, I wouldn't expect them to listen to me unless I had at least some empirical evidence on the subject I am giving recommendations on. Therefore, I would be sure to have some sort of reasoning to back it up with. Legal advice is not usually given from a position of feeling or emotion, but rather it is based on the statutes or upon case law.

And that is what I asked you for. Some sort of information that backs up your feelings. I don't consider that a heavy burden.

Third, no one is asking you to prove a negative. If you asked /me/ to prove that people don't get it (either topic) used against them, that would be proving a negative and would indeed be invalid.


If you have no information to share on the subject, that is fine, your opinion is certainly welcome. I do not take your original post as your opinion though. Not when you give it as legal advice.

In summary, you make two relevant points which have been given counterpoints:

- You feel an attorney that has been retained or has some pre defined contract with you might be used against you by a prosecutor.
-- You have received a reply that it is not probable that this information could be used at all in court since it would violate attorney client privilege.
-- No one has cited a single case where someone has had this used against them.
- You feel openly carrying a full size firearm could be used against you in court.
-- It has been argued that if this were brought up, it would likely fail and that open carrying a full sized pistol is what police officers do. Police officers are commonly used as reference points for 'reasonable' self defense shootings.
-- It has been argued that there are two different points to concealed carry and open carrying. Concealed carry can be perceived as less honest, and it can be looked at as trying to 'ambush' someone. Open carry can easily be argued to be a deterrent by a law abiding citizen who simply wants to go on their way and doesn't want any criminal activity occurring around them.
-- Carrying a firearm with shorter sights, less capacity, less power and potentially less accuracy can be argued as a potential liability to the safety of yourself and those around you should you be in the situation where you need to use the firearm. It can be argued that the need to protect yourself is not being taken seriously.
-- No one has cited a single case where someone has had this used against them.