Post New

I don't remember if this has ever been discussed before. I've always wondered about it in the back of my mind. I think we did broach this, and albaby said lawyers would be lining up to represent me (if I was deported, as I recall). But, what if I was just detained?

Simple scenario: 1poorlady (Filipina) and myself are "swept up" (quite illegally) by ICE. Assuming they actually observe our rights as far as calling a lawyer, who would I call?

I don't have a lawyer. I'm not rich enough to have one on retainer. The only ones I see ads for are personal injury and DUI lawyers. Who would I call, and how would I know to call them? And will they not be able to squeeze me in until next Thursday? I would need a lawyer NOW. Albaby isn't the right kind of lawyer, and probably can't practice in AZ anyway. He's the only lawyer I "know".

Sure, if it's personal injury, that's not an emergency. I can get home from the hospital, do some research, and then call Goldberg and Osbourne, or "The Husband and Wife Law Team" (a local couple), or Rafi law group, or a bunch of others that advertise ad nauseum. But if I'm in a detention center (jail, or whatever), and I get my phone call...how do I know who to call?

Granted, an unlikely scenario. But, given the current state of our police state, not inconceivable. And I could be picked up because I fit a vague description of some perp they issued an APB on by local PD. That could happen to anyone. They pick people up all the time. The common wisdom is not to say a word except "lawyer". But, again, I don't have one. Now what?


As an aside, I can't imagine what people flown to the detention center in TX do. Maybe if they have someone on the outside researching and calling on their behalf, they are lucky. Otherwise, they're really up a creek.

I don't have a lawyer. I'm not rich enough to have one on retainer. The only ones I see ads for are personal injury and DUI lawyers. Who would I call, and how would I know to call them?

I'm not that kind of lawyer, so don't call me! But I do know the answer to this.

If you're in jail, you are usually allowed multiple phone calls in order to obtain counsel (it's not just "one" phone call). You're probably best off calling whoever you're closest to that's not in jail with you, like a relative or a close friend, and explain your situation and ask them to do some research and find you a good lawyer. If not, many jails will have lists of criminal defense attorneys or attorney referral services - even advertisements in the area where the outside phones are for making such calls.

I can't offer too much visibility into what ICE would do. Google's AI Slop Machine tells me that ICE detention facilities are supposed to offer similar access to telephones as jails do - detainees are to be provided unmonitored telephone access to legal counsel. ICE was playing a lot of games with that in certain circumstances, but I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to make them concerned that they might actually have a U.S. citizen on their hands and might need to let you place a phone call to counsel. It might not be quick or convenient, but you should be able to get on a phone with a lawyer in due course.

As an aside, I can't imagine what people flown to the detention center in TX do. Maybe if they have someone on the outside researching and calling on their behalf, they are lucky. Otherwise, they're really up a creek.

There are specialists in immigration law too. The folks who are frelled are the ones with no-one to notice, and care, that they have gone missing. There have been several reports of people ICE has grabbed off the street and whisked off to a concentration camp, without even their being able to make a phone call to tell someone they have been grabbed.

Steve

I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to make them concerned that they might actually have a U.S. citizen on their hands and might need to let you place a phone call to counsel.

Or, declining to admit they made a mistake, bury you so deep in their system, you never see the light of day again.

Isn't there an irony in "Count of Monte Cristo" that one guy is in prison for being against Napoleon, and the man in the next cell was condemned for being for Napoleon?

Steve...new production of "Count of Monte Cristo" on PBS next month.

Astounding story, a 60 yr old tourist with a valid tourist Visa, imprisoned for 6 weeks!

I gotta think there's a way she could sue the US for wrongful imprisonment.


‘Don’t go to the US – not with Trump in charge’: the UK tourist with a valid visa detained by ICE for six weeks

Karen Newton was in America on the trip of a lifetime when she was shackled, transported and held for weeks on end. With tourism to the US under increasing strain, she says, ‘If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/ka...

‘If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone’

If it can happen to her, it can happen to US citizens too.

Steve

So why did ICE detain her, and keep her locked up for so long? A possible answer began to emerge over the weeks she was incarcerated. As Karen got to know the guards at the Northwest ICE Processing Center where she was held, she kept hearing the same thing from them: that ICE officers are paid a bonus every time they detain someone. “Individual ICE agents get money per head that they detain – the guards told me that,” Karen says.

Astounding story, a 60 yr old tourist with a valid tourist Visa, imprisoned for 6 weeks!

I gotta think there's a way she could sue the US for wrongful imprisonment.

Almost certainly not. Because of this detail, which is mentioned briefly in the article, but is almost certainly the most important fact.

“He said, ‘If you volunteer for self-removal – and because of the special relationship the US has with the UK – it will be over very quickly,’” Karen continues. They’d have to sign a document that would mean they would be banned from the US for up to 10 years, and waive their right to go before a judge. If they chose not to, and waited for their day in court, they would be prolonging the ordeal, she was told.

“I said to him, ‘I’m on holiday. I want to go home.’ I would have taken the shortest route, whatever it was, which he said was volunteering for self-removal.” So they signed. Karen had no way of knowing that she was only on day three of what would turn out to be 42 days of detention.

Now, we have no way of knowing the specifics of what was in the document she signed. But it's almost certainly terrible for her. I'm sure it's filled with admissions and waivers - admissions that she was present in the country illegally, that she had knowingly committed violations of U.S. immigration law, admissions that she had assisted others in violating immigration law, waiver of rights to contest her detention or removal, etc. Again, we don't know the details, but there's probably no way the government would lose a case once she's signed that document. She probably signed all her rights away.

Plus, from the article, it appears that almost the entire time she was in detention was during the government shutdown, when many (most?) non-essential government operations were on hold. The article dismisses this desultorily by saying that Karen saw people being deported from the facility during that time...but processing a "voluntary self-removal" may have been in a different part of ICE functioning than "ordinary" deportations. The latter are an exercise of a law enforcement function, while the former isn't necessarily in the same basket (again, because the government isn't technically forcing them out, but rather helping them leave voluntarily so they can avoid the formal deportation process). Who knows whether that was technically true or not, but it's unlikely the government's going to incur liability if it chose to prioritize resources during a shutdown to the pure deportations rather than the voluntary self-removal basket.

Tying this into the thread topic - this isn't legal advice, but if you do get detained you probably don't want to do what she did. You likely don't want to say anything, and certainly not SIGN anything, before talking to a lawyer. The LEO's are not on your side, they don't have to tell you the truth, and they can't commit to something being faster or easier or better for you if you just give up your rights.

If they chose not to, and waited for their day in court, they would be prolonging the ordeal, she was told.

But she did sign, yet was still incarcerated.

Seems unjust to this average joe that she signed but did not get the quick flight home AND had to undergo a lengthy ordeal.

I have to imagine immigration attorneys are up to their eyeballs in alligators with all the bullshit going on... and that if there was a solid case to be made they'd be anxious to rep her.

Of course, she cannot return, having signed up for the 10 yr ban, so suing would be a logistical challenge unless she can make her appearances on ZOOM.

Of course, she cannot return, having signed up for the 10 yr ban,

After the way she was abused, why would she want to?

If she needs a winter getaway, Spain and Portugal are just a short hop away

But she did sign, yet was still incarcerated.

Technically, no. She wasn't incarcerated - she was detained. Incarceration normally refers to a term of confinement imposed for a criminal violation. Detention is her being confined to a particular area due to not being legally permitted to be at liberty in the country.

She signed, but the document almost certainly did not obligate the government to any particular time frame to take the steps of arranging for her transport out of the country. Again, we don't know the details - but it probably said that she agreed to remain in ICE custody until the government provided her transport home. That was always going to happen on the government's schedule at the government's convenience, and the most likely reasons that it didn't happen quickly are that: i) the shutdown through a monkey wrench into almost everything the government was doing; or ii) ICE is also up to their eyeballs in alligators because they are (wrongfully) trying to arrest and detain vastly more people than they have the capacity to properly handle.

Again, I can't imagine she's got a case after signing whatever document the government drafted. I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't contain so many waivers and admissions that they basically had the right to do whatever they wanted to her once she and her husband signed. Not legal advice, but signing anything the government LEO's prepare without having it reviewed by your own lawyer is likely to put you in a difficult spot.

She wasn't incarcerated - she was detained.

From her perspective, I doubt she sees the difference.

A cell looks the same whether you are being detained or incarcerated.

From her perspective, I doubt she sees the difference.

A cell looks the same whether you are being detained or incarcerated.

Indeed, but there is a significant legal difference between civil detention and incarceration.

Indeed, but there is a significant legal difference between civil detention and incarceration.

The Trump administration will try whatever legal scheme it can to achieve its cruelty.

From your perspective as a lawyer, you see the process differences between “detention” and “incarceration”.

But from the perspective of those behind the bars, the experience is the same.

And this is the administration’s secret sauce. It doesn’t care about process.

Whatever achieves its aims is what it does. And it will do whatever it can get away with until it is stopped. And then it will try again.

But from the perspective of those behind the bars, the experience is the same.

And this is the administration’s secret sauce. It doesn’t care about process.

That's true, but I'm not sure that's what led to this woman being detained for so long. If you sign a paper that (essentially) says that you agree that the government has the right to keep you detained until they deign to arrange passage for you - which is what I suspect happened here - they haven't incarcerated you. You've agreed to give up any rights you had to move around the country. Once you've done that, they're not really denying you any process if it takes them a while to get around to arranging for you to leave.

It's a cautionary reminder that if you're visiting another country, your presence there is entirely at the sufferance of that country's government. If you do anything that violates the terms of your visa, they (generally) don't have to let you have the freedom to move about the country - which means confining you to wherever suits their convenience (and security choices) for you to stay now that you don't have liberty to choose your own.

So - it's probably not a good idea to sign a piece of paper that says you've violated immigration law. Which, again, is what I suspect happened here.

From her perspective, I doubt she sees the difference.
A cell looks the same whether you are being detained or incarcerated.

Also, if they offered $1k and a quick trip home, yet locked her up for a month and a half... didn't that breach the deal they offered as an enticement to sign?

If you do anything that violates the terms of your visa, they (generally) don't have to let you have the freedom to move about the country - which means confining you to wherever suits their convenience (and security choices) for you to stay now that you don't have liberty to choose your own.

We only have the published story to go on, but assuming she was correct, her tourist visa was valid... there's was no justification to lock her up- a 60 yr old woman with zero crimes, not even a parking citation- for 6 weeks because what?

On what planet is that not all kinds of unjust that deserves ad'justing'

We only have the published story to go on, but assuming she was correct, her tourist visa was valid... there's was no justification to lock her up- a 60 yr old woman with zero crimes, not even a parking citation- for 6 weeks because what?

I would assume that the paper she signed contained a bunch of admissions that she had violated immigration law. Again, we don't know for sure. But that's what one would expect - in order to get the "deal" of voluntary self-deportation, you're going to have to make an acknowledgment of guilt. Once she signed that, she was basically toast, in terms of any rights that she might formerly have had. If you confess, you're going to get the consequences of a guilty person - even if you haven't done anything, not even a parking citation.

I hate to say it, but the six weeks she was stuck in detention is probably explained by Hanlon's law. "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." ICE agents might get a bonus for the initial arresting of or detaining of someone, but it's not likely that bonus is at all affected by how long they stay in detention. There probably wasn't anyone who benefited at all from her staying for six weeks, rather than a few days. The most likely explanation is either that the shutdown threw ICE off, or they just never bothered to do anything with her from some other sheer bureaucratic stupidity. I've dealt with bureaucracies in my practice for decades, and many of the most frustrating things come not from someone making an affirmative choice to do a bad thing, but from people just not taking action at all if it a choice isn't being forced on them.

Again, the real problem was likely that she signed the papers they gave her. They sold that to her as making things simpler for her, but in reality it probably made things much simpler for the government - which meant that her case wasn't something that required anybody's attention. Which meant no one was paying attention, especially during the shutdown when you would expect a lot of normal processes/personnel that might have kept a case moving forward would have been temporarily unavailable.

Proud Boys' $100 Million Lawsuit Puts Trump In A Lose-Lose Position
Five members of the violent extremist group are suing the federal government after President Donald Trump pardoned them over Jan. 6.

If these cretins can push a lawsuit against the US...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-jan-6-tr...

If these cretins can push a lawsuit against the US...

My stock answer, every time a client has asked if they can sue the government when they make a mistake or take too long or do something they're not allowed to do:

"Anyone can always sue. Doesn't mean you're going to win."

"Swept up" is not a legally meaningful term.

Stop blowing smoke poorman.

Start thinking logically.

Did you mean "unlawfully detained"?

You can perhaps file some kind of lawsuit but what are your damages?

Why would you be swept up?

Why would your wife be swept up?

I don't know are you planning on driving your SUV at an ICE officer?

Maybe you will be swept up if you do something like that.

If so, be smart like Renee Good's wife and tell your wife not to be in the vehicle with you when you try it.

Sano,

you actually have to READ the stories you link to.

When Karen Newton and her husband crossed from the U.S. to Canada, her husband was found to have an EXPIRED visa.

They were both TURNED BACK BY CANADA.

Of course, we are not given sufficient information, but if she was in the U.S. on a tourist visa, LEAVING THE U.S., even for the time it took to be turned back by Canada, may (probably) means she was NOT AUTHORIZED to re-enter the United States. Maybe, maybe not.

As usual with these phony sob stories, we are never given all the facts and what facts are truly relevant are deliberately obscured as much as possible.

What were the dates Karen's visa was valid? The article doesn't say.

It's all just b.s. and you're just regurgitating it.

Do you actually think if her own husband had an expired visa maybe something wasn't right with hers?

Stupid article.

albaby1,

Looks like you didn't read the whole Karen Newton article either.

The lesson to take from this story is don't try to enter the United States from Canada with a travel partner/spouse who's on an expired visa, like Karen Newton's husband. That's mentioned in the article but way down there.

Also, don't leave the U.S. to go to Canada or any other country during your vacation to the U.S. and try to re-enter unless you, and your partner's, visas are totally in order.

Which, obviously, the Newtons' weren't.

THEY WERE BOTH TURNED BACK BY CANADA.

D'ya think they may have tried to enter Canada when they realized her husband's visa to the U.S. was EXPIRED and already KNEW they would get arrested if they tried to leave the U.S. directly???

Canada authorities were the ones who caught them.

These people were trying to avoid being arrested when leaving the U.S. by going to Canada and then leaving from Canada to go back to England. It's pretty obvious.

If you're traveling with someone who is violating U.S. immigration laws, maybe you are subject to detention for being an accomplice to immigration fraud or violation of immigration laws? She was clearly aware his visa had expired, AND CLEARLY TRIED TO HELP HIM EVADE U.S. authorities by sneaking into Canada.

If even those nice friendly Canadians didn't want them, obviously, we don't have all the facts, do we.

Sano,

Again READ. THE. ARTICLE.

Her husband was in the U.S. ILLEGALLY, on an expired visa.

As his travel partner, and it's not really clear what her own visa status actually was from the article--there was at least reasonable suspicion if not probable cause to believe that she aided and abetted her illegal husband in 1) trying to evade U.S. immigration authorities by trying to illegally enter Canada and then fly home to England from Canada; 2) she tried to enter Canada ILLEGALLY and/or aided and abetted her husband in trying to enter CANADA ILLEGALLY--but the Canadian authorities turned them back to the U.S.; 3) aided and abetted her husband in attempting to re-enter the U.S. ILLEGALLY on an expired visa which they both clearly had actual knowledge of. Her OWN right to re-enter the U.S. would have been dependent on the terms of her own visa. We don't know that, she doesn't say in the article. However, it is very very VERY clear that illegally being in the U.S. on an expired visa like her husband was; illegally attempting to then re-enter after being refused entry into Canada is if not a 10 year ban, possibly event a PERMANENT ban on re-entry for her husband. And if she aided and abetted him--which she did--she admits that in the article although doesn't call it aiding and abetting--SHE may be chargeable with immigration fraud or other immigration felonies.

The Guardian is dumb.

Don't be the Guardian.

She is very lucky she didn't get charged with a criminal felony for aiding and abetting her husband's violation of immigration law.

I'm sure she was pleased as hell for her and her husband to get out of the U.S. with a wrist slap of a ten year ban.

Probably because she is a White Person from England she got very favorable treatment.

They should have sent her and her husband to CECOT.

Please refer to Title 8 USC 1324(a): penalty for "alien smuggling" includes a fine and/or imprisonment for "not more than 10 years."

If not this statute Karen and her husband violated some similar aspect of U.S. immigration law.

Or at least reasonable suspicion if not probable cause to detain her.

She and presumably her husband got a mere six weeks, not 10 years, no criminal charges, in exchange for agreeing not to try to re-enter for 10 years.

HER HUSBAND would not have been able to do so anyway. Most likely neither would she as his aider and abettor. Most likely they would have been subject to a lifetime permanent ban from coming to the U.S. if this had been litigated either civilly or criminally. Plus jail time if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

SHE agreed to the MINIMUM civil penalty she would have gotten under ANY circumstances. Obviously she probably also signed a covenenant not to sue etc.

Her husband was in the U.S. illegally on an expired visa. She knew that. They left to go to Canada but Canada didn't want them either because it must have been obvious that they were both behaving in violation of the respective countries' immigration laws. She then tried to aid and abet her husband in re-entering the U.S. illegally.

She got a sweetheart deal and she should be thanking her lucky stars she only did 6 weeks in the hoosegow.

These people were trying to avoid being arrested when leaving the U.S. by going to Canada

Answer ONE question: How did they get INTO the US in the first place?

Yes, that IS *your* problem to explain.

Oh yeah,

reading the article more closely, her husband and Karen tried to illegally bring a CAR into Canada without the proper paperwork/authorizations. At least that's what the article says is the reason Canada sent them back to the U.S.

These people were FLEEING the U.S. because her husband, and she, were trying to go back to England and I assume hoping to evade U.S. border authorities who might notice his visa was expired.

They don't say how long his visa was expired.

The article does point out it was a work visa not a tourist visa, but that he decided to "retire and return to England."

So the whole story doesn't make a lick of sense.

Did he stop working or was laid off or fired at some point before this tale of woe begins? If so and the visa required him to be working for that particular employer to remain valid, maybe her husband was afraid to try to leave the U.S. on an expired visa by himself without her help. Again--not enough details, but it's all fishy.

So, he was working in the U.S., then his work visa expired, then he went back to England and retired, and THEN came back to the U.S. illegally with her??? No, that can't be right.

It sounds like they may have been separated at least because he was working in the U.S., she was in England.

But she's just a poor innocent tourist. Sounds like she was trying to smuggle him out of the U.S. into Canada or something.

How stupid do you have to be, or desperate, to try to drive from U.S. to Canada without proper paperwork (whatever that is--it was their job to know that) for your vehicle? I mean this story is actually pure b.s. if you bother to read it carefully.

She was detained or locked up or incarcerated because she was treated fairly and in accordance with U.S. immigration law.

She got very favorable treatment in the end.

Her arrogance and entitled privileged White European attitude screams through the entire story.

Why didn't they interview the husband "Bill" to find out what the heck was actually happening here?

You lefties really really need to start using your own brains.

Just a little.

It would do you a world of good.

No, it is THEIR problem to explain. And YOURS since you are defending them. Conveniently, the guardian article does NOT explain.

It DOES say her husband was in the U.S. on a work visa and decided to "retire and go back to England."

HE was NOT on a tourist visa. AT all.

That implies that he overstayed his work visa, probably because he quit his job or was fired, and stayed longer than allowed after that event.

SHE came on a tourist visa. He was already here on a work visa, which had expired.

Sounds like they were separated. Maybe they weren't even legally married or were common law. Article doesn't tell us.

They tried to cross into Canada illegally with a vehicle and didn't have authorization. They were turned back at the border and re-entered the U.S. illegally. She aided and abetted him and that's what the authorities told her, despite her scoffing at American immigration law (typical leftist).

If you don't think this woman is a total loser, she actually admits that when detained she told the authorities basically, "Just because my husband has to stay here why do I have to stay here? I have a valid visa!" So she was prepared to abandon her "husband."

Nice lady.

Also, if her intention in entering the U.S. in the first place was to help her husband evade immigration authorities by crossing the U.S. Candada border and then flying from Canada to England, then her visa was fraudulent from the get go.

She got a sweetheart deal.

Stop defending felonious immigration law violators.

It's a bad look.

OK the Daily Mail is saying that her husband DID re-enter the U.S. with Karen to go on her vacation of a lifetime.

But he didn't have a tourist visa.

He had a work visa which had "expired" (actually was not valid for tourist travel, plus maybe expired too).

When he re-entered the U.S. on his expired/invalid work visa, and did not have a valid tourist visa, he committed immigration fraud, a felony.

She obviously KNEW he was entering illegally, and aided and abetted him in doing so. Also immigration fraud, also a felony. She even admits (although obviously she isn't telling the whole story) that the immigration authorities told her she helped him pack. Yes and helped him do a lot more to violate U.S. immigration laws. She was his partner in immigration crime.

Both of these folks are very very lucky they had the opportunity to cut such a sweetheart deal.

The lesson:

As Jim Carrey said in "Liar Liar" to one of his clients who asked him how to stay out of trouble: "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!"

Amazing how the facts always counter the left wing narrative.

This is interesting - from Sano's article:

The Proud Boys lawsuit comes the same day Shane Lamond, the former leader of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department’s intelligence division, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for leaking information to Tarrio ahead of the Jan. 6 attack.

These people were FLEEING the U.S. because her husband, and she, were trying to go back to England and I assume hoping to evade U.S. border authorities who might notice his visa was expired.

Uh, DRIVING to England?

Turn OFF your Putin/Spankee remote control (maybe you can't. In Russia?).

Your posting reads more like a crashed Keystone Kops and the circus clown car. 17+ people in a TINY car.

No Jerry,

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.

You don't need a visa for visits less than 6 months.

They weren't going to drive to England.

They might not have been planning on leaving Canada.

It's undisputed the husband entered the U.S. illegally. His work visa became invalid when he retired and went back to England. He entered the country with his wife on the supposed "vacation" illegally.

She aided and abetted him.

He must have lied at the border and used his work visa to get back into the U.S.

She helped him.

Then she wanted to abandon him when they got caught upon attempted illegal re-entry to the U.S. from Canada.

The entire story is nonsense.

"Anyone can always sue. Doesn't mean you're going to win."

Yep. This is a tangent, but that's why "good samaritan laws" are useless, or nearly so**. Even if the plaintiff loses, you still have to hire a lawyer and go to court to have the suit thrown out. That's not free.

So, I won't help anyone in distress except to dial "911". I won't touch them otherwise. Not worth the risk to myself and my family (it could cost $10K to get it thrown out, with hourly lawyer charges of $300+).


**Not entirely useless since I won't have wages attached, or my home taken, or whatever.

You're probably best off calling whoever you're closest to that's not in jail with you, like a relative or a close friend, and explain your situation and ask them to do some research and find you a good lawyer.

As a follow-up, how does one determine that? Google reviews? That was facetious, but it might be interesting if that was correct. Is there a resource for determining the quality of a lawyer, and whether they are appropriate to my situation (should I find myself picked up for something)? I use the judge ratings of their peers to determine which judges I vote for, for example.

As a follow-up, how does one determine that? Google reviews? That was facetious, but it might be interesting if that was correct. Is there a resource for determining the quality of a lawyer, and whether they are appropriate to my situation (should I find myself picked up for something)? I use the judge ratings of their peers to determine which judges I vote for, for example.

You know, I don't really know. Since I'm in the legal field, I would just ask colleagues to recommend someone - so I've never had to think about it much. My understanding is that it generally works the way you'd find a good doctor. You'd reach out to someone in your monkeysphere that was a doctor and ask them for a referral, either to the person you're looking for or someone who might know someone like that. I do know that there are lawyer referral services out there, but I don't know how active they are in "ranking" the lawyers they feed work to.

You know, I don't really know. Since I'm in the legal field, I would just ask colleagues to recommend someone - so I've never had to think about it much. My understanding is that it generally works the way you'd find a good doctor. You'd reach out to someone in your monkeysphere that was a doctor and ask them for a referral, either to the person you're looking for or someone who might know someone like that. I do know that there are lawyer referral services out there, but I don't know how active they are in "ranking" the lawyers they feed work to.

I learned something when I was in our RV on a 5 month trip across the country and had a tootache which only got worse. We were in Missoula, Montana - not a big city, clearly we had no contacts there and our home dentist knew no one. But he gave me this advice:

“Call an oral surgeon and ask for a recommendation.” The reason you call an oral surgeon is because he can’t bid for the work, it’s not in his wheelhouse. But he sees the work that dentists do and will have an informed opinion on who does good work.

I don’t know if there’s an analog for “legal”, but that particular trick worked very well for us, strangers in a strange land, with a problem only a dentist could fix. Required a root canal, which he cleared out an entire morning about a week out (rather than multiple, repeat trips as my local dentist requires), and asked “What drugs would you like for the week?” And wrote a prescription for the one I named.

We did a one-week circle around the sights of Montana while I had copious pain killers, came back and he took care of me in one sitting. Good times!

My understanding is that it generally works the way you'd find a good doctor.

There are several ways to check doctors. Sure, I can ask my PCP. For a lawyer, that would be like asking my -retainer- lawyer, except I don't have one. Usually, I hit the internet for sites like "healthgrades" (https://www.healthgrades.com). There are a few others, and I usually cross-check between them to see if the MD is consistent across all rating entities. And is on my network (though that wouldn't be relevant seeking a lawyer).

If they had something like "lawgrades", that would be a great starting point! A quick check shows that the don't have such a site. Of course, I'd have to be free from detention to utilize such a source if it did exist. Pretty sure they don't provide laptops in jail.

It's all academic, and hopefully will remain so. But I often think of contingencies, and this one seems to defy "normal" processes. It's like I have to wing it, and hope for the best.

If they had something like "lawgrades", that would be a great starting point! A quick check shows that the don't have such a site. Of course, I'd have to be free from detention to utilize such a source if it did exist. Pretty sure they don't provide laptops in jail.

Probably the best advice would be to contact a family member or trusted friend "on the outside" and ask them to find a lawyer for you, rather than trying to find one yourself.

Goofy's suggestion might be a good one - ask someone that's in the field but not likely to be competing for your services who they would recommend. If you want a strategy, you might ask your friend/family to do a quick google search for the single largest law firm in the area that has a white collar criminal defense practice. Call up the partner who's the head of that practice - you'll get their secretary. Let that secretary (very nicely!) know that you're looking for a referral for a (presumably) non-white-collar criminal defense attorney and ask if the partner has any recommendations. The partner probably has a colleague that they like to refer their clients to, and that person will probably be pretty decent. And the partner will probably be happy to give that referral to you.

Cool. Just for fun, I did a search of "white collar criminal defense lawyer phoenix". Surprisingly, I seemed to get some decent results.

Key Phoenix White Collar Defense Lawyers and Firms:
Ashley D. Adams (Adams & Associates, PLC): Specializes in federal and state fraud, money laundering, and healthcare cases with over 20 years of experience.
Paul K. Charlton (Dentons US LLP): A highly recognized attorney specializing in white-collar crimes and business litigation.
Blumberg & Associates: Known for handling complex white-collar charges and investigations in Arizona.
MayesTelles PLLC: A team experienced in defending various financial and corporate crime cases.
Alexis E. Danneman & Matthew R. Koerner: Recognized by Best Lawyers for excellence in white-collar criminal defense.
Horan Law Offices, P.C.: Led by Adnan Horan, focusing on fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering defense.
Feldman Law Firm: Offers specialized defense using experience from a former prosecutor’s perspective.
AZ Defenders: Focuses on mitigating charges and securing not-guilty verdicts for white-collar offenses.
Adams & Associates, PLC
Adams & Associates, PLC
+8

Cool. Just for fun, I did a search of "white collar criminal defense lawyer phoenix". Surprisingly, I seemed to get some decent results.

Yep. I did a search for the largest firms in Phoenix that have a white collar practice and found two I recognized immediately: Greenberg Traurig (8th biggest firm in the country, actually started here in Miami) and Quarles and Brady (also a big national firm). So if you called up one of those shops and spoke to whoever does their white collar work, they're likely to be someone who isn't looking to take on a small case (to them - big to you!) and thus aren't going to try to sell you on their own services, but would know a capable criminal defense attorney that they like to refer their clients to.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.