<p>
</p>
<p>What is it?</p>
<p>
It just doesn’t seem right to me that the tickets of so many admittedly guilty parties are dismissed entirely by hiring a lawyer yet when they go to court themselves they still end up with a fine, points, etc. The lawyers weren’t even at the scene and shouldn’t be in a position to honestly ‘win’ the case. This leads me to think there must be something else going on. </p>
<p>Do any of you know what really happens with the ‘ticket lawyer’ handles these? Do they simply pay an ‘administrative fee’ to the court such that the court will happily dismiss the ticket because they received their money, and with less hassle and overhead required on their part, which is all they really wanted in the first place in many cases? Or is it some form of good ole boy network to generate revenue for the lawyering profession? </p>
<p>Again, if you step back and look at it, it’s just not right that a lawyer can get traffic tickets routinely, in some cases almost certainly, dismissed yet the defendant can’t even though these are very simple cases.</p>
<p>donnaL - That was terrible behavior on the part of the cop - both the lying and the treatment of you. I imagine the judge accepted the obvious lying in order to generate revenue but I question why the judge didn’t put a stop to the cop’s verbal abuse of you.</p>
<p>He got a speeding ticket in NY state a couple of years ago. He paid the ticket and had no points assessed on his license but the insurance went up $200 per year. Going to a traffic school (4 hrs in class and $50 for a certificate) in NY results in a 10% discount on insurance premium, which might be about $150 in our case (BTW, you can use traffic school to get the discount even if you don’t have tickets). It does not remove the surcharge that is due to the moving violation but it does save some money. After paying the fine, DH found out that he could have filled out a simple form that is found on DA’s website (look under county government web page) and asked for reduction in charges to a non-moving violation or for a dismissal of the ticket, which can often be done for the first ticket in the state.</p>
<p>He had also had some tickets in the past in other states, and had gone to court. He never used a lawyer and never lied, just asked for some leniency - in many cases, the DA will offer a reduced fine prior to hearing or the judge will listen to your request and reduce the charge. Of course, this is not guaranteed but for the most part, it does not hurt to try.</p>
<p>
It’s simple to change the oil in my car, but I pay someone who is much better at it to do it.</p>
<p>I’m a lawyer. When I go to court for a traffic ticket (or a murder case), I know how to read the accusatory instrument, what the law is, the range of punishments, the collateral consequences, the possible plea deals, and the fines and collateral consequences of those plea deals. I know if the county, city, or town has a policy on your particular case or type of cases, whether the prosecutor, officer, trooper, or sheriff is bound by any policies of his command, and what pleas the judge is willing to take given the circumstances of any case. And if I’m in a foreign court or if there’s a new judge, one of my colleagues will be happy to exchange information as a professional courtesy, knowing that I would do the same or have already done so. And I get paid for that.</p>
<p>You’re free to do it yourself, just like I can change my own oil. Of course, I might spill some and get a worse result than if I hired an expert.</p>
<p>When it comes to traffic tickets, you have to figure out how they are handled in the jurisdiction in which you will appear. All the stories about what happens in other states are completely irrelevant. In some states - Virginia is one of them - a lawyer is often necessary in order to get any relief. The judicial system is overly solicitous of lawyers there. In Maryland, for example, it is completely different. You can plead “Guilty with an Explanation” so you’re not tying up the time of the officer, not disputing his/her word but simply saying that you’re asking for leniency based on the circumstances or on your record. The judge would probably want to fine you for being an idiot if you bring a lawyer to court under those circumstances. The lawyer lobby is likely not happy with that option, but it streamlines everything and works very well.</p>
<p>
But it’s just a lousy traffic ticket - nothing complex - or at least nothing that should be complex. So my question is - does the lawyer pay a ‘fee’ to the court which basically they accept as an expedited offset to the fine? From the posts it seems that in some areas it’s routine to hire a lawyer for these simple traffic tickets and almost be guaranteed of dismissal yet if they show up themselves they get the fine. What does the lawyer actually do in these cases that are (or s/b) very simple with little or no loopholes? It doesn’t make sense that the tickets should be so casually dismissed just because a lawyer happened to be hired.</p>
<p>Now - if only one could hire a ticket fighting lawyer for the price of an oil change - that would be progress. ;)</p>
<p>@hops_scout - “hanging to the right” would just be driving on the right side of the lane you’re in. Not over the line, just towards the right side than right in the middle. The trooper pulled over D because of this, but his official warning sounded a lot more dire.</p>
<p>When my H talks about “hanging to the right” I don’t think he is talking about driving… :)</p>
<p>us—dad, if you ever had any involvement with traffic fines in NY State (or many other parts of the country) you would quickly give up any expectations of fairness in the process. If you can afford a lawyer, then your consequences will be minimal. If not, you can really lose big time. The whole exercise is largely a money making enterprise. Once lawyers are involved the costs go up and the returns go down. It is cheaper for the courts just to acceptable minimal payment. I also suspect there is an issue of professional courtesy where the judges and lawyers who are in the good old boys club all help each other. On Long Island there are lots and lots of local municipalities. Many support their police departments and part of the local town government with the proceeds of traffic fines. I once got pulled over in a local town speed trap. I was not charged with speeding, but with a rolling stop at a stop sign. The offense supposedly occurred about 11pm on a deserted side street with the cop several hundred yards away. I really do think I came to a stop but it did not matter. I did not have enough sense to get a lawyer so I spent the evening in court. Finally it was so late at night that I just paid the fine in exchange for not getting any points. I have had minimal involvement with our legal system but these types of encounters build lots of resentment and destroy any feeling that the system is fair.</p>
<p>Although it’s been quite a while since I received a ticket and went to traffic court, I don’t know anyone in California ever getting a lawyer to fight a routine traffic ticket and I didn’t see any lawyers in the traffic court. Maybe it’s handled differently in California or maybe it’s changed recently?</p>
<p>There certainly seems to be a lack of fairness and equity in the idea of having simple routine tickets routinely dismissed as long as a lawyer is hired even though there’s really next to nothing to argue the case over, i.e. there’s really little value added by the lawyer over the defendant in a simple situation like caught on radar speeding 34 in a 25 as opposed to a more complex situation.</p>
<p>It still seems like the court really wouldn’t dismiss these so readily unless they get their share of the dough, whether it’s called an ‘administrative fee’, ‘court costs’, or whatever so my question to those knowledgable about this area is - in this situation, does the court receive some cut of that $350-400 lawyer cost and is that why they’re fine (no pun intended - maybe) with dismissing it so readily?</p>
<p>No, the court does not receive some sort of rebate from the lawyer. Depending on the offense, the lawyer may get the case dismissed or quite often there is a minimal fine for a lesser offense.</p>
<p>I think what this is telling you is that in the vast majority of cases there is no valid basis for the ticket (whether it is lack of proper evidence, improper procedure by the cop, whatever). A lawyer who knows the rules is not a sheep waiting to be fleeced.</p>
<p>You can’t read into the lawyers’ success rates that there was no valid basis for the ticket. Some jurisdictions simply pander to the lawyers and keep them busy. Others don’t. It has nothing to do with whether the charge is valid. Some states require that a lawyer be involved in a residential home sale. There is no reason for this other than to give business to the lawyers and the lobby is strong enough to keep that in place. People manage to buy and sell homes all the country without a lawyer being involved so it is not because it is necessary. The lawyer doesn’t go in and argue the case and make a smoking gun argument. The lawyer simply cuts a deal with the prosecutor whether the case is strong or not. The jurisdiction still gets its revenue and the lawyer gets paid. It’s all about money, not justice.</p>