Trying to find a not afraid attorney

[Steamyinteriors]

Jurisdiction

Illinois

I'm looking for an attorney that is not afraid and willing to look into changing a sex crime conviction. There are options I am open to, but removing the charge altogether is my goal. Please respond or email me if you are that person. The charge was 1 class one criminal sexual assault.

 

[Zigner]

This is not a referral board.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm looking for an attorney that is not afraid and willing to look into changing a sex crime conviction. There are options I am open to, but removing the charge altogether is my goal. Please respond or email me if you are that person. The charge was 1 class one criminal sexual assault.

I suggest you consult the Illinois State Bar Association's Lawyer Finder service to help you find a lawyer that handles that sort of matter or use some other lawyer directory service. This site is not a place to find lawyers to represent you. If you have a shot under IL law to expunge or seal the conviction you'll be able to find a lawyer willing to do it. Lawyer's aren't afraid to take on a legal matter, but the good ones don't take on matters that are outside their area of expertise, who already have enough clients and don't have the time available to take on more, or matters have no realistic shot at succeeding. Ask a lawyer who handles these kinds of matters and turns you down why the lawyer won't take this on. If you hear from more than one attorney that what you want is not possible, that may unfortunately be the case, at least for now. Sometimes even when the law affords an avenue for relief there is a time period you must wait before applying for that relief.

 

[adjusterjack]

Attorneys aren't afraid.

You just have to have lots of money with which to pay their fees.

 

[zddoodah]

I'm looking for an attorney. . . .

How much money do you have to pay the attorney as a retainer?

Regardless, this isn't a referral site.

 

[cbg]

Reputable attorneys do not troll message boards looking for clients. As indicated above, this is not a referral site. You call your state Bar Association, your local Legal Aide, or any law schools in your area for referrals.

 

[army judge]

Attorneys aren't afraid

I politely beg to differ.

Some attorneys fear getting stiffed, as in not fully compensated for their effort and work expended seeking justice for their financially challenged clients.

 

[Steamyinteriors]

I appreciate all of your responses. Sorry I am on the wrong site to post this. I will look for attorneys that specialize in this area. Thank you again.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Some attorneys fear getting stiffed, as in not fully compensated for their effort and work expended seeking justice for their financially challenged clients.

And then there are those attorneys who will work knowing they'll get stiffed, like those that have represented former President Trump. Just because someone is an attorney doesn't automatically mean the person is bright or has much common sense.

 

[army judge]

Just because someone is an attorney doesn't automatically mean the person is bright or has much common sense.

It took me less than 48 hours to realize most 1Ls would never qualify to become a member of MENSA.

 

[doucar]

It took me less than 48 hours to realize most 1Ls would never qualify to become a member of MENSA.

So that was my problem

 

[welkin]

And then there are those attorneys who will work knowing they'll get stiffed, like those that have represented former President Trump.

And then there are those attorneys that think more of the rule of law and the Constitution then money.

 

[Tax Counsel]

And then there are those attorneys that think more of the rule of law and the Constitution then money.

Lawyers have bills to pay like everyone else. Working for free is not a good way to pay those bills. One can be passionate about defending the Constitution and still want to earn at least a decent living for the work he or she does.Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Some of Trump's attorneys didn't seem to really know what the Constitution says; their best attribute seemed to be kissing up to Trump. The good attorneys Trump had, most of whom were there in the first two years of his administration, got fired or pushed out by Trump the moment they took a principled stand that didn't match what Trump wanted to do. For Trump, the Consititution was not a set of principles to be admired and followed. Rather, it was an inconvenience that stood between him and his goals. He's not the first president to feel that way, and likely won't be the last. But he's the one that made his dislike of some parts of the Constitution very clear and very public, so he stands out more than the others. It was for those kinds of leaders that the founders put in the restrictions on the power of the president that they did. And by and large those restrictions seem to have been effective in keeping presidents and Congresses from running roughshod over the rights of the People.

If we really want a stalwart defender of the Constitution as president then we need to do better then nominating the two old men now running for the job, neither of whom were very vocal about defending the Constitution during their first terms.

 

[Tax Counsel]

It took me less than 48 hours to realize most 1Ls would never qualify to become a member of MENSA.

Unfortunately a pretty accurate observation. It also didn't take me long to see that many of the 1Ls were simply not interested in doing the hard needed to become a truly good attorney. About one-third of the 1Ls in my class didn't make it back for the second year, and for most the reason they washed out was because they didn't put in the time and effort that law school requires.

 

[welkin]

For Trump, the Consititution was not a set of principles to be admired and followed. Rather, it was an inconvenience that stood between him and his goals.

You make a lot of assumptions about Trump and his attorneys that I would need some explanation of what leads you to those conclusion. But since this is a legal forum, I don't want to get into politics. The narrative you posted does suggest that you have, at least, a mild case of Trump derangement syndrome rather than what actually took place.

What I know about the Trump presidency was beneficial to me personally and the country; there was less tension in the world, we were not on the brink of WW3, we were rebuilding our military, the country was securing it boarders, and I had more money in my pocket. That is a far cry from where we are now. He was not a Washington insider and that is what pissed off the Washington elite. Washington was and remains a swamp where our personal rights get eroded and the government takes more control of every aspect of our lives. Trump rejected that.

How much money do good lawyers have to make? Yes, pay their cost of overhead to run their practice and make a living. I agree with that.

Just look at the damage award in the E. Jean Carroll case, $83+ million. So if that award stands, the attorney makes $27,000,000? How long could you run your practice on that amount if you didn't get paid from other clients? It's absurd! But it does show how the judicial system in this country has been weaponized to go after those you don't like or that you want to silence. Thankfully there are plenty of lawyers that work Pro Bono and work for foundations, where cases of Constitutional importance are handled.

You have been a very good advocate for the legal profession. Doctors take the hippocratic oath and lawyers also take their state's bar oath. In sum:

1. to support the Constitution of the United States,
2. to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney, and
3. to conduct oneself with integrity and civility.

How does that fit with the The 65 Project where lawyers file ethics complaints against other lawyers to prevent lawyers from representing clients the left doesn't like?

 

[army judge]

You make a lot of assumptions about Trump and his attorneys that I would need some explanation of what leads you to those conclusion. But since this is a legal forum, I don't want to get into politics. The narrative you posted does suggest that you have, at least, a mild case of Trump derangement syndrome rather than what actually took place.

What I know about the Trump presidency was beneficial to me personally and the country; there was less tension in the world, we were not on the brink of WW3, we were rebuilding our military, the country was securing it boarders, and I had more money in my pocket. That is a far cry from where we are now. He was not a Washington insider and that is what pissed off the Washington elite. Washington was and remains a swamp where our personal rights get eroded and the government takes more control of every aspect of our lives. Trump rejected that.

How much money do good lawyers have to make? Yes, pay their cost of overhead to run their practice and make a living. I agree with that.

Just look at the damage award in the E. Jean Carroll case, $83+ million. So if that award stands, the attorney makes $27,000,000? How long could you run your practice on that amount if you didn't get paid from other clients? It's absurd! But it does show how the judicial system in this country has been weaponized to go after those you don't like or that you want to silence. Thankfully there are plenty of lawyers that work Pro Bono and work for foundations, where cases of Constitutional importance are handled.

You have been a very good advocate for the legal profession. Doctors take the hippocratic oath and lawyers also take their state's bar oath. In sum:

1. to support the Constitution of the United States,
2. to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney, and
3. to conduct oneself with integrity and civility.

How does that fit with the The 65 Project where lawyers file ethics complaints against other lawyers to prevent lawyers from representing clients the left doesn't like?

Thank you for offering your honest recollection of the presidency presided over by number 45.

I'll submit, for the record, my remembrance of 45's four years mirror yours.

My tax burden was lessened, my finances and other assets appreciated without governmental decimation (as in confiscations), and the world wasn't headed into a no win, just elimination, WAR.

 

[Redemptionman]

You also forgot to add the fact that, IMO. Senators and Representatives should not be able to invest in the stock market through intermediaries which therefore give them immunity from prosecution. Everyone going to the senate should not be able to benefit financially from the bills they pass nor from the deals they make. Eliminate that and allow them to live off the $200k salary they make. No more payments to the Big Guy and for gosh sake can we give Martha Stewart an expungement.

Laws for thee and not for ME.

 

[Tax Counsel]

No more payments to the Big Guy and for gosh sake can we give Martha Stewart an expungement.

Martha Stewart isn't hurting for money. She hired lawyers to represent her at her trial, and her attorneys succeeded in getting the judge to drop the most serious charges against her before trial. She got a fair trial and a jury convicted her. She has the money to hire an attorney to seek expungement of her convictions, but it'd likely be wasted money because in the federal system expungements are rarely ever granted. The judge would have to be persuaded that it would be "in the interests of justice" to grant the expungement. What could Stewart possibly argue to satisfy a judge of that?

In any event, your implication that somehow changing the investment rules for members of Congress would change the outcome of her case is off the mark. Congress doesn't grant expungment; the courts do that. Changing how the members of Congress invest wouldn't impact her case in the slightest.

I do agree with you, however, that tighter rules are needed for how members of Congress handle their investments while in office.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The narrative you posted does suggest that you have, at least, a mild case of Trump derangement syndrome rather than what actually took place.

Hardly. I have a very clear picture of the Trump presidency. Many of his supporters overlook the problems of his presidency and some seem to revere him close to something like God. I'm not one of them and IMO Trump was a terrible president who, while he had some successes, overall did more harm to the country than good. Your views of Trump and recollection of his presidency are different than mine. That doesn't bother me. That's politics. And ever since the founding of the Republic the voters have argued and disagreed with each other over who is the best candidate and what is the best policy for the nation and their state to follow. That's all for the good, as those are signs of a robust democracy. I'd be worried if everyone in this country agreed on everything.

How much money do good lawyers have to make? Yes, pay their cost of overhead to run their practice and make a living. I agree with that.

Are you in favor of wage and price controls by the government? Nixon tried that in the 1970s and it was a disaster. If you believe that parties should be free to contract on the terms they agree upon then a contingent fee agreement ought not bother you. No client is forced to sign such an agreement. There is no more justification for limiting lawyer fees than limiting the fees or wages of anyone else. TOP NFL, NBA, and baseball players make a lot of money, many millions of dollars. Are they really worth that? A lot people say no. But they bargained for those salaries with the billionaires who own the teams, so they got that money through fair bargaining. That's what the founders wanted to preserve when they prohibited the states from passing any "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". US Const. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.

Some people make a lot more money than their work would be worth to most others. But as long as the money is earned through fair bargaining between the parties involved and no fraud or other crime is involved, I see no legal problem with it. Some of the pay that people earn makes me shake my head and wonder why anyone really thinks the work they do is worth it, but I'm not paying the salary of any of those people so it's not really my place to seek statutes that would limit what they earn through fair bargaining.

 

[cbg]

And we have long since wandered away from the OP's question, which was answered and acknowledged by him/her back in post #8. Any further discussion can be taken offline, or a new thread opened to that topic.