Why Non-Local

Lives Are At Stake

There are people with local power, influence, and standing. Often these people act according to their own rules, which usually are devoid of ethics, and far outside the law.

They are protected in cover of their social standing, their position of wealth, and history within communities.

Their influence extends to law enforcement, local members of the bar, government officials on many levels, and the judiciary.

These entities work in a synergy to self protect, making the law, or simply what is right, irrelevant to their desires.

The first two cases our founders were involved with formed our decision never to be localized.  Never to be compromised.

If the law is what is important to us, as a group; and the basics of adhering to legal requirements are valued, then we had to be in a position to represent those values without compromise, and build a  non-local structure.

We think when you hear these two incidents, you will agree. 

There are thousands more, often more angering and blatant, than these in which we have been involved these last decades.

Client One, 1991, California

A young professional woman was caught in an abusive marriage.  Her husband had caused injuries so severe she had a damaging concussion, and included broken bones in her feet.

He bailed out of jail, promising to kill her later as he raped her.  She was unable to move due to the aftermath of the injuries.

As soon as she could drive, she snuck out in the middle of the night.

Seeking advice from a dear, trusted, friend, he directed her to call on a musical colleague of his from years back.  This colleague was a professional who could help give the woman cover to heal and regroup.

Despite the gold records on the wall, and the cloak of association to a beloved band, this recommended professional was corrupt.

His decades prior brush with fame afforded him influence in the community.  He held out an image with certifications, licensing and authority which he did not have.

However, neither the old friend of the woman, nor the woman herself were aware of his duplicity.

Knowingly breaching her trust, this man put her life in jeopardy, at which point she discovered his duplicity and the depth of his corruption.

She confronted the man, naively expecting him to do the right thing, be honest.

Unfortunately, he chose to protect himself, and his facade.

He trumped up false charges against her, and she was arrested on multiple felony counts.

She was able to find a good lawyer, locally, after a few declined her case.

Upon working with this lawyer, it was discovered that the police did not investigate any claim made by the fraudulent businessman.

Simply took his word that a sophisticated level of dangerous felony activity was occurring.

He had set her up so another local businessman and he could perpetrate a multimillion dollar insurance fraud.  Which they almost got away with.

The charges against the woman were dropped, after months of public humiliation and loss due to the accusations, including large business contracts and her professional career.

The businessman and his partner which fabricated the intricate lies in order to defraud an insurance company of over $3,000,000 faced no consequence for their actions.

It was quietly just dismissed. The woman was free, but there was no justice for the real perpetrators of the crimes.  No penalty for providing false evidence against a person. 

No penalty, at all.

The reason?

This former musician was well liked in the community.

And, the DA had made a big splash about holding out his record of being hard on white collar crime…with this woman as the poster crime for his campaign.

The assistant DA in charge of her case apologized, but the bigger picture was that he needed to protect his career.  He couldn’t go against this powerful DA who would surely be reelected.

Her lawyer would have loved to make sure she was vindicated publicly, and the true crimes revealed, however, he needed to practice in the community in the future, and best not make enemies of the DA and courts.

The judge in the case knew what really transpired, yet said nothing and aided in the quiet removal of the case, assuring no recourse for the guilty parties in the fraud against the court.

The law, what was ethical, what was right, what was deserved, were irrelevant.

Yes, the parties surrounding the woman did make sure she was free.  But, they were so sorry, there was nothing they could do to clear her name in the court of public opinion.

It would risk their careers.

We are not local.  We do not have counsel burdened with needing to appease local judicial, law enforcement, or counsel.

We are free to present a full throated, fully vetted, fully investigated, case in support of the law, and of what is right.

No local hierarchy to jeopardize a career.

Just a worthy client and the law to serve. 

Client Two

The boy was four.  Curly haired, large soft eyes.  

His mother and father were separated.  His father was quite disturbed, something of common knowledge in this relatively small town.

The mother was granted full custody of the boy, with the father having supervised visitation.  

One of the visitations was not supervised, by mere unfortunate coincidence, and the father brutally sodomized his son.

The aftermath was devastating, not only to the child, but the community.  

The father was not charged, paid no price. 

That, however, was not the worst of it.

The court did strip the father of any contact with the young boy, as was the correct decision under the law, as well as morals.

After a six month period of threatening the boy and his mother, the father went back to court.  It was heard in front of a judge unfamiliar with the case.

A judge with several decades on the bench.

A judge whom, after days of gut wrenching, graphic, explicit and overwhelming testimony as to the danger this father was to his son, granted the father joint custody rights.

How could that possibly have happened?

The young lawyer representing the mother and boy asked the same question. 

Upon further investigation, it was revealed that this judge was suffering from advanced dementia. A condition which was not publicly disclosed, though well known within his office and the court.

The judge had fallen asleep during most of the testimony, and had not read the brief detailing the underlying circumstances.

This young lawyer was livid. This judge must be removed from the bench, and he was going to see to it.

However, the senior partner at the firm where he practiced called him aside.

Keep quiet about the judge.  Do not discuss it, again, with anyone.  That was an order.

Because, the legal profession, once in place, protects its own.

You do not call out another lawyer for misconduct.  You don’t report the law enforcement officers on the take, or blatantly violating the law.  You don’t expose the bench when the judge is grifting, incapacitated, or inept.

All parties involved, on all sides, protect their careers rather than rock the boat and clean anything up.

The press is culpable, as well.

Look around at what is happening on all levels of the law, today.

Three weeks after the judge denied the restraining order sought by the mother,  returning joint custody to the father, the father beat the young boy to death.


Moral Set #1 We Live By:

The young lawyer was given better advice:

Never work where you live.

Always be the hired gun from out of town, so you can represent the law

Call out the corruption, the grift, the incompetence

Vigorously defend your client, ethics and the law, full out, full on, and with every tool justified against these people 

Moral Set#2 We Live By:

Use every tool at your disposal to fight the good fight.

The best investigators, deep diving, unfettered, from out of town

Deploy the media that you influence and control to expose the truths in the court of public opinion – and cultivate honest media that you influence and control

Get the toughest, most strategic, white hat legal counsel you can find, and turn them loose to do their job

Find at least one person who understands the rules the corrupt have put in place which protect them, and beat them at their own game

These two examples were the ones which set the foundation we built on.

We couldn’t do anything for either of these women, the losses they suffered are inexcusable.

We did not begin with the mandate to provide legal support for females.  Quite the opposite, we started to provide legal support for any person facing those who flaunt their connections, behave as if they are outside the law.

It was two women who started the company.  To lawyers, where, in the early 1990’s, were a restricted class in any court.

We have a multitude of professionals we work with , and our of counsel, now, is one of those junkyard dog advocates who happens to be male.

We would also love to say that we are seeing less and less disregard of the law, less grift, less corruption – but you know as well as we – that is not the case.

We would also love to say that these two cases were the worst we could document.  That isn’t true, either, far from it.

We can tell you we get a good deal of garden variety bullies throwing their local weight around in boring civil cases.

Those are fun, a welcome antidote to the abject anger and heartbreak of the criminal.