Here, the goal is quality over quantity. Every case and every client that comes through the door isn’t the right fit. I purposefully limit the cases that I take so each client’s case is given adequate attention and I’m not spread too thin.
I founded this practice on the idea that clients needed to be better informed and more involved in their representation. I valued an education component to my practice, where I could educate clients on the law and the process thereby enabling them to have a greater hand in the objectives of their case. To do so, of course, requires time.
When clients choose me, therefore, I optimize my time to be available to them—personally answering my phone—and to be well-prepared to address their questions and concerns. I make it a point to read every published criminal case from the U.S. Supreme Court and Pennsylvania’s appellate courts so I’m more prepared than both the judge and the prosecutor.
That level of attention, admittedly, comes at a premium. My time and advice are my “stock in trade”—as Abraham Lincoln is famously quoted as saying—and in that regard I differentiate myself from other lawyers who offer “free consultations” as a means to generate traffic. Here, I request a consultation fee because I endeavor to provide something of value as opposed to a sales pitch. I fully embrace that this doesn’t make me the most-sought-after lawyer, but it makes me a more effective one for those who have serious issues that deserve serious attention.
The criminal process requires preparation, and preparation requires adequate time and attention. I’ll allow my prior cases to speak to the level of preparation and attention that I give to every case.