Friday, April 06, 2007

I've been rated ... and they actually said nice things

I got a letter the other day saying that I "have been awarded a CV Peer Review Rating by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, which deals with both ethical standards and legal ability. No, I'm not making this up. You can see for yourself on the Martindale Hubbell page on Warren Redlich.

A CV rating "identifies a lawyer with good to high legal ability [and] is a positive indication of ... professional expertise." This was the "result of an extensive ... peer review by members of your Bar."

At first I thought they were referring to my favorite bar, Mahar's. But then I realized they meant other lawyers in the Albany area. I am quite flattered that others spoke well of me. Now of course I'm looking at the fact that there are higher ratings -- BV and AV. The letter is kind of congratulations for getting a grade of a C. Somehow that's a good thing.

Of course I'm also rationalizing why I didn't get a higher rating. Hmm ... maybe you have to get the CV rating first before they'll elevate you to a higher one. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Actually, I looked around the listings for Albany and the AV-rated lawyers I saw are people who've been around a long time and are well-known for their excellence. I was surprised to see that Joe McCoy and Scott Bush (Roche Corrigan McCoy and Bush) are only BV rated. Both are truly outstanding lawyers. I've been dealing with Scott for about 10 years now and he was well-recognized when I first met him. Joe is also widely respected in the Albany criminal defense bar, and has been for years. A friend of mine is, like me, rated CV. He is one of the best DWI lawyers in New York State, and he's been doing it longer than I have. So maybe a CV rating isn't so bad.


Anonymous said...

Hi Albany Lawyer. I have a question about UPM. Client entered a police checkpoint and when the car was searched, the police found less than 1/8 ounce of marijuana. With the court appearance ticket approaching, I need to know. Does a plead of not-guilty and a subsequent being found guilty bar the defendant from all financial aid forever? If so, how can this charge be lowered? I have neither the funds for college nor for a lawyer, also I am rather far from you geographically. Your help would be much appreciated, and perhaps I can paypal you a small sum.

Unknown said...

Responding to the question from Anonymous, it is my understanding that any drug conviction (including a UPM) renders the defendant ineligible for financial aid forever.
The big issue in your case is probably the checkpoint - these are generally unconstitutional and a good lawyer should be able to challenge it and win - unless the police actually did it correctly.

Anonymous said...

Well, the police could smell marijuana, and possibly see smoke, so there is a likelihood of probable cause. Please go on though. However, I haven't the funds to hire a lawyer. (18 year old, working for family business without pay) I have heard that I can A) achieve an ACOD, B) have it lowered to a lesser, non-drug charge, or C) request a lab report, which will lead to a dismissal. What is the likelihood of this? It took place in Suffolk County. I wasn't arrested, and I have no previous record.

By the way, I found your blog while searching for help, and I have to say, its one of the more entertaining ones I've found in a long time. Never thought law would be so interesting. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

If this is the client's first UPM, then he/she is automatically entited to an ACOD Marijuana CPL 170.56.

With the ACOd, there is no conviction, thus no impairment of ability to get finacial aid. Also, if the kid is 18 or under you can get youthful offender status and record will be sealed, but it would be a same to waste that on a violation.

Unknown said...

Not all judges and prosecutors believe the ACOD is "automatic". In my opinion it is wise to hire an attorney to help with that. --Warren

enhancelogic said...

HI. I ran across your page when I was trying to figure out the difference between a lawyer who was rated and a lawyer who was not rated. Basically, I was laying in bed thinking about how a long time ago I hired a BV rated lawyer and I was wondering if it was worth it. I mean, what would have happened if he wasn't BV rated. All I know from my experience was that he got me off pretrial. I thought it was pretty awesome. Before I ran into him, I went to interview only one other lawyer around and he wanted me to plea guilty.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty impressed with rated lawyers. From my experience, a rated lawyer is on top of his game compared to a none rated. I scheduled an appointment with a none rated lawyer and when I got to his officer, he knew nothing about my case. I had to explain it to him as opposed to the BV rated lawyer I hired.

Anyway, I'm just rambling on and on right now. heh.. Do you do the same thing Albany? Do you read your potential client's file before you even meet your client?

Unknown said...

I usually would not have access to my client's information until they contact me. If they fax me their info first, then I'd read it before I met them.