Episoder
-
On today’s episode Jake concludes his 4-part guest series on marketing. Today’s guest Camille Stell is the President and CEO of Lawyers Mutual Consulting & Services. Camille is a frequent author and speaker on topics of legal marketing and business development and helps lawyers and law firms with coaching and strategic planning. On today’s episode, Camille discusses networking. Her take on marketing helps demystify why so many lawyers hate networking events and have trouble producing lasting relationships from such events. To Camille, the value of building your business through your network is the single greatest investment you can make in your firm. If you want to have fun and be productive at your next networking event, then don’t miss a word of today’s episode!
-
On today’s episode Jake continues a 4-part series on marketing. Today’s guest Joe Ruotolo is the Head of Marketing at Intaker, a legal marketing company focused on helping attorneys utilize technology to stand out. Joe shares some of the cutting-edge uses of AI in the legal space, why attorneys have a hard time evaluating AI software applications, and how AI agents will change the legal landscape in the coming years. If the letters AI are giving you ulcers, then listen to Joe break down in clear and simple terms some of the most practical uses of AI for lawyers in the world today.
-
Mangler du episoder?
-
On today’s episode Jake continues a 4-part series on marketing with a stellar lineup of guests. Today’s guest Anna Cates Williams of Cedar Grove Law discusses current trends in legal advertising and website design, finding your voice in the legal marketplace, and a game plan for finding time to develop your law firm’s marketing. Whether you are trying to improve the effectiveness of your Google LSAs or discover efficiencies to improve your intake process and client capture rate, Anna’s incredible wisdom will provide you with immediate steps to improve your legal marketing. Have pen and paper ready for this episode so you don’t miss any golden nuggets!
-
On today’s episode Jake begins a 4-part series on marketing with a stellar lineup of guests. Kicking it off, Uli Seusterof How to Manage a Small Law Firm joins the show to discuss referral-based marketing. Uli’s tips for generating referral relationships and cases are practical and time tested. If you think that referral marketing is how established law firms build their client base at no cost, then you are wrong on all counts. Learn why Uli thinks that most lawyers do not budget enough time or money to build referral relationships and how to use your referral network to generate more work than you can handle.
-
Fresh on the heels of discussing the power of creating a resilient community, Jake shares part of a recent meeting of the Freedom Fighters Mastermind Group. During the meeting, Jake outlined the origination of the Freedom Fighters Book Club and how this group has evolved into a more intentional business development meeting of likeminded law firm owners. If you are interested in joining the Freedom Fighters Mastermind Group, reach out to Jake to learn more.
-
On this week’s episode, Jake concludes his four-part Endurance series by discussing the power of creating a resilient community. If you want to be able to face difficult challenges, you need the right people in your corner when the time to stand up and fight comes. Jake offers 5 tips for building a resilient team that can thrive in the face of adversity. If you want the blueprint for a winning culture and a plan for attracting and training warriors, turn up the volume on the dial and dive in!
-
On this week’s episode, Jake continues a four-part Endurance series on becoming a better endurance professional by doing hard things. In this episode, Jake reflects on lessons from his recent experience of running the Grindstone 100 ultramarathon. Jake applies the lessons taught while “grinding” to business, the practice of law and life.
1. The hardest thing that’s ever happened to you is the hardest thing that’s ever happened to you. Put your difficult circumstances into perspective.
2. Level up the competition. Look for a group of worthy rivals.
3. Belief precedes ability. If you plan to accomplish big goals, your confidence in achievement must come before you realize the dream.
4. 2-point conversion for the W versus kicking the extra point to tie. If you want to win, there are times that you need to take calculated risks in order to achieve victory.
5. Don’t overbook yourself or your team. If you have a monumental task, don’t go into it physically taxed or mentally burnt out.
6. The power of positivity. Speak life into your mind and into the world.
7. The power of prayer. Gratitude and a focus on others in times of trial is a recipe for success.
8. Keep moving forward. If you are stuck in a difficult situation, the way out is movement. If you stay where you are your circumstances will not improve.
9. Relish the gnarly. If you go searching for a challenge, be prepared for the moment when you have your back against the proverbial wall.
10. Soak in beautiful moments. Don’t miss out on the beauty that life has to offer because you are focused on the pain.
11. Bonus: Develop a championship routine. “You shouldn’t wait until you’re a champion to act like one.” – Sally McRae
-
On this week’s episode, Jake continues a four-part Endurance series by focusing on becoming a better endurance professional through the study of tough people. Jake does a deep dive on the leadership and business lessons that can be learned through the unbelievable story of Ernest Shackelton as told in Alfred Lansing’s bestselling book Endurance. If you want to see the human spirit at its finest, you must find stories of the best leaders in the most difficult and desperate of circumstances.
-
Fortitudine Vincimus. This Latin phrase is the family motto of Ernest Shackleton translated as “by endurance we conquer.” As his family, friends, and team in Western North Carolina deal with the unbelievable damage caused by Hurricane Helene, Jake launches this four-part series on building the discipline of endurance to surviving trying times and step up in moments of extreme adversity. As William Barclay once said “Endurance is not just the ability to bear a hard thing, but to turn it into glory.”
-
Criminal defense lawyers are professional storm chasers. We seek out anxiety provoking situations. If all were well in our clients’ lives they would not be calling us. “Trial” is the culmination of our profession. But we are often poor emergency responders when it comes to putting out fires or dealing with stormy situations in our own law practices. In this episode, Jake gives you the playbook for quelling the current and future storms that seek to destroy your law firm. Put on your rain gear and hunker down for this week’s episode!
-
Adventure! On today’s episode Jake discuss responding to the call to adventure in your personal and professional life. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that “some journeys take us far from home. Some adventures lead us to our destiny.” The most fulfilling lives and law practices are lived and built by individuals who accept the call to embark on a journey of discomfort and suffering in pursuit of something bigger than themselves. Get ready to trailblaze with Jake!
-
On today’s episode, Jake talks shop with Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, R.J. Dreiling. After 15 years of prosecuting crime, including a number of high-profile cases, R.J. decided to start his own defense firm less than 2 year ago. Listen as R.J. explains why he is so passionate about delivering the best possible outcome for his clients. Jake and R.J. also discuss the importance of finding the work you love doing within your firm. If you are looking to hang your shingle and want to get your practice set on the right footing, don’t miss out on today’s episode!
-
On today’s episode, Jake talks shop with Utah criminal defense attorney, Josh Baron. Josh literally wrote the book on The Business of Criminal Law and shares how to build a practice fueled by referrals while also enjoying life as a criminal defense attorney. If you love the intersection of business and criminal defense, Josh is your kind of lawyer and this episode is for you!
-
On today’s episode, Jake discusses the Rule-Out Method for framing your criminal trial with Charlotte criminal defense attorney Justin Olsinski. Justin is a passionate advocate who knew from the moment he entered law school that he wanted to be a criminal defense attorney. Listen to Justin share how he has used the principles of David Ball’s The Rule-Out Method of Criminal Defense to help juries understand and apply reasonable doubt in a criminal case. If you handle trial work in Superior Court, this episode is a must listen!
-
On today’s episode, Jake looks at some of the major changes that have occurred in the legal marketplace since he began practicing 15 years ago to predict some of the major changes coming to the legal landscape. If you are looking to build a practice designed to thrive during the next decade this episode is for you!
Highlights:
· Discover how YouTube and Google Reviews have put a premium on client experience.
· Uncover the necessity of technological education for all legal professionals and the need to include people in your circle who will keep you on the cutting edge of technology.
· Learn how non-lawyer firm ownership is already changing the game in states that still allow only attorneys to own a law firm.
-
On today’s episode, Warren Hynson shares best practices for trial lawyers to preserve issues for appeal. Warren’s law firm, Hynson Law, exclusively handles criminal appeals and post-conviction relief issues across the State of North Carolina. If you want to be a better trial lawyer and have a better understanding of how a conviction can be overturned, don’t miss out on Warren’s advice on this week’s episode!
Highlights:
· Understand the simple steps for a Defendant to perfect an appeal following a guilty plea or trial.
· Hear Warren’s suggestions for discussing appeal options with your client.
· Uncover the most common mistakes that Warren sees trial counsel make in criminal cases and how to avoid them.
· Learn the various types of post-conviction relief available and when each should be utilized.
-
On today’s episode, Jake discusses the importance of finding a Worthy Rival in the courtroom and in business. This concept is based on a chapter from Simon Sinek’s The Infinite Game, the July book of the month for the Freedom Fighters Book Club. If you want to take your trial skills and business acumen to the next level, go find and learn from a worthy rival.
-
On today’s episode Jake reviews the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Arizona. This 9-0 decision provides clarity on the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause violations that occur when the state tries to substitute a lab analyst at trial who did not herself test the substances or blood at the lab. Don’t miss the big implications this opinion has on your blood draw DWI case!
-
On today’s episode of the podcast Jake looks back at the most influential North Carolina DWI cases of the past year. Abstracts of the cases are found below.
CHECKPOINTS
State v. Alvarez, 894 S.E.2d 737, No. 278PA21 (N.C. 2023)
Facts: Rowan County Sheriff’s Office set up a checkpoint. The checkpoint was purportedly in response to a high-speed fatality accident that had occurred at that location two days earlier. No officers on scene were checking speeding. Defendant’s passenger side wheels came off the road and onto the grass prior to stopping at the checkpoint. One of the officers on scene testified that this behavior led him to believe the Defendant might be driving while impaired.
Procedural History: Both the trial court (superior court) and the Court of Appeals (State v. Alvarez, 860 S.E.2d 45, 2021-NCCOA-375 (2021) (unpublished) found the checkpoint did not have a proper primary programmatic purpose. The Court of Appeals appears to call into question a checkpoint set up for “all chapter 20 violations” as possible general crime control.
Holding: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals finding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle due to the lane violation but did not address the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of the checkpoint. Use the Court of Appeals opinion to attack a checkpoint based on the lack of a proper primary programmatic purpose.
REASONABLE SUSPICION
Sate v. Peak, 892 S.E.2d 925, No. COA23-312 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished)
Facts: Stopping officer was highly specialized in DWI investigations. Defendant delayed for 10-seconds at a traffic light after it turned green. There were two open bars within a quarter mile radius of the stop location. Defendant crossed over the yellow lines with both left tires into the opposite lane of travel. Defendant was travelling at one to two miles per hour.
Holding: Reasonable suspicion existed to stop Defendant.
PROBABLE CAUSE
State v. Woolard, 894 S.E.2d 717, No. 208PA22 (N.C. 2023)
Facts: Officer saw Defendant cross centerline six or seven times. Officer active blue lights and Defendant quickly stopped his vehicle. Upon initial approach, Defendant “seemed normal” to the officer. After asking about the driving, Defendant told the officer that there were bees in his truck that he was trying to get out. As they spoke, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed cheeks, and red and glassy eyes. Defendant seemed coherent to the officer. Defendant admitted to having “a couple beers earlier.” Officer administered two PBTs, but these were excluded from consideration because they were not performed correctly. Officer also administered the HGN test, during which he saw six of six clues. Officer placed Defendant under arrest for DWI.
Procedural History: Defendant was granted a preliminary indication that no PC existed in District Court. The State appealed to Superior Court where the Defendant again prevailed and the case was sent back to District Court for a final order granting suppression. After the District Court entered its final order the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals which was denied. The State then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Supreme Court which was granted. There was no transcript of District Court proceedings or record on appeal for the Supreme Court to review.
Holding: The Supreme Court found it had discretionary authority to rule on the merits of the case and found probable cause.
EXPERT TESTIMONY
State v. Williams, 891 S.E.2d 499, No. COA22-1015 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished).
Holding: It was not error for the trial court to allow a DRE to offer testimony about a DWI investigation that the DRE was not involved in, when the DRE stated that she could not testify (i.e. give an opinion) as to whether the Defendant was impaired.
Practice Tip: This case is from Buncombe County, where the State routinely calls a DRE that has not done a real time DRE evaluation in a particular case to give after-the-fact analysis and opinion at trial. Here’s the beef: There is no opinion being offered by investigating officers [State v. Lewis, 2022-NCCOA-887 (2022)] or by the DRE that the Defendant is impaired. Point out that no officer involved in the investigation or brought in as an expert to bolster the State’s case can give an opinion of drug impairment.
BREATH TEST
State v. Forney, No. COA23-338 (N.C. App. 2024)
Facts: During chemical breath testing, the officer noticed Defendant had gum in his mouth, and had Defendant spit out the gum between the first and second breath tests, both of which resulted in a .11 BAC. The chemical analyst did not restart the observation period or seek an additional breath test. Both the State and the Defendant had experts testify at trial on whether breath testing might be impacted by foreign objects in the mouth.
Burden of Proof: The Court noted that as the proponent of the breath test evidence in an impaired driving case, the State bears the burden of proving compliance with the “observation period” requirement set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-139.1.
Holding: The provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services requiring an observation period by the chemical analyst were violated in this case and a new fifteen-minute observation period should have occurred after the Defendant spat the gum out of his mouth before taking breath samples. The results of the breath test should have been suppressed, but the Court concluded that in this case the admission of the BAC results was harmless error.
Practice Tip: The Court in dicta noted “the Intoximeter estimates alcohol in the blood (BAC) based on a measurement of alcohol in the breath—a ratio which in reality varies amongst different people—by using a single specific ratio to standardize the testing of all subjects.” If you are using Henry’s Law to characterize the breath result as an estimate in a .08+ case, you can read this language to give credence to your argument.
BLOOD DRAW
State v. Burris, 289 N.C. App. 535, 890 S.E.2d 539, No. COA22-408 (2023) (unpublished)
Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.
Relevant Facts: Single vehicle accident. Officer found Defendant lying trapped under a steel fence outside of a vehicle that had sustained extensive damage. The Defendant was unresponsive and bleeding excessively. The officer noted that Defendant smelled of alcohol and found beer cans both inside and outside the vehicle. The Defendant was taken to the hospital, still unconscious. The officer obtained a warrantless search of Defendant’s blood while Defendant was unconscious.
Holding: Based on Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) the Court of Appeals found that exigent circumstances almost always exist to conduct a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver. This opinion is at odds with State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678, 800 S.E.2d 644, No. 199PA16 (2017). Both Romano and Burris were in Buncombe County.
Practice Tip: Use the Court’s findings in Romano to craft your explanation as to why exigent circumstances do not exist in your case. Also, look at Judge Tyson’s scathing dissent in Burris.
State v. Russell, 891 S.E.2d 502, No. COA22-1059 (2023) (unpublished)
Holding: The Confrontation Clause is not violated where a substitute expert from the SBI testifies (and is subject to cross-examination) using another SBI agent’s previously generated report, which otherwise may be inadmissible, in forming an independent expert opinion.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
State v. Burris, 289 N.C. App. 535, 890 S.E.2d 539, No. COA22-408 (2023) (unpublished)
Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.
Relevant Facts: Single vehicle accident. Officer found Defendant lying trapped under a steel fence outside of a vehicle that had sustained extensive damage. The Defendant was unresponsive and bleeding excessively. The officer noted that Defendant smelled of alcohol and found beer cans both inside and outside the vehicle. The Defendant was taken to the hospital, still unconscious. The officer determined that the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle and found no evidence of any other occupant.
Holding: The State presented sufficient evidence of driving to survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the officer describing the Defendant at trial as “the driver” without personally observing the same was admitted without error due to the Court giving a curative instruction.
Practice Tip: Distinguish the facts of Burris and use State v. Ray, 54 N.C. App. 473, 283 S.E.2d 823 (1981), State v. Eldred, 815 S.E.2d 742, No. COA17-795 (2018), and State v. Kraft, No. COA18-330 (2018) (unpublished) to argue for lack of sufficiency of the evidence in your case.
State v. Jones, 894 S.E.2d 290, No. COA23-254 (2023) (unpublished)
Facts: Defendant admitted to being in a minor traffic accident. During the accident investigation, the investigating officer noticed an odor of alcohol in Defendant’s car (where he was sitting), slurred speech, and Defendant admitted to drinking. Defendant blew positive on a PBT, showed six of six clues on HGN, and refused chemical testing after arrest.
Holding: In the light most favorable to the State, the State introduced substantial evidence that could prove Defendant was appreciably impaired and the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s evidence.
PRE-TRIAL RELEASE & KNOLL
Pretrial Integrity Act – This act, in part, limits the authority of a magistrate judge to set conditions of pre-trial release for a person charged with DWI if the offense occurs while the defendant was on pretrial release for another pending proceeding. Only a district court judge has the authority to set the conditions of pretrial release for the first 48 hours following the defendant coming into custody for an alleged DWI offense if the defendant was on pre-trial release at the time of the newly alleged DWI.
Practice Tip: This new release procedure is hard to square with State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535, 369 S.E.2d 558 (1988). Consider these concluding statements to the Supreme Court’s decision in Knoll: “Each defendant's confinement in jail indeed came during the crucial period in which he could have gathered evidence in his behalf by having friends and family observe him and form opinions as to his condition following arrest. This opportunity to gather evidence and to prepare a case in his own defense was lost to each defendant as a direct result of a lack of information during processing as to numerous important rights and because of the commitment to jail. The lost opportunities, in all three cases, to secure independent proof of sobriety, and the lost chance, in one of the cases, to secure a second test for blood alcohol content constitute prejudice to the defendants in these cases. That the deprivations occurred through the inadvertence rather than the wrongful purpose of the magistrate renders them no less prejudicial.” (emphasis added)
State v. C.K.D., 895 S.E.2d 923, No. COA23-204 (2023) (unpublished)
Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.
Facts: Defendant was arrested a registered a .17 BAC. Defendant was transported to the Iredell County Magistrate’s Office where the magistrate set a $2,500.00 unsecured bond and detained defendant until he was sober or a sober responsible adult was willing to assume responsibility. The magistrate filled out a detention of impaired driving form and found “by clear and convincing evidence” that Defendant’s condition of “BAC .17, Red Glassy Eyes, Slurred Speech, Odor of Alcohol” presented a danger “of physical injury to the defendant or others or damage to property” if he were released. Defendant declined to use a phone to call his wife because he did not want to wake her, or their young children. He also checked the box indicating “I do not wish to contact anyone for the purposes of observing me at the jail or administering an additional chemical analysis.” Defendant asked officers if he could call a cab to take him home and that he had funds to pay for a cab. Defendant testified that he could be home in approximately 25 minutes if he had been allowed to take a cab home. Defendant remained in Iredell County Jail for approximately 11 hours prior to his release. During this time he was checked twice by jail staff and told he would be released when he blew a .00.
Holding: The trial court did not err in dismissing the DWI charge against Defendant based on State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535, 369 S.E.2d 558 (1988). “Even if defendant waived his right to have someone observe him at the jail, he did not waive his right to have friends or family observe his condition outside the jail, which is what would have occurred had he been permitted to call a taxi and return home to his wife.”
Note: The Court ruled that the magistrate’s findings of “BAC .17, Red Glassy Eyes, Slurred Speech, Odor of Alcohol” were not sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendant was a threat and should not have been released.
PLEA AND SENTENCING
State v. Harper, 894 S.E.2d 798, No. COA23-206 (N.C. App. 2023)
Holding: The trial court erred by failing to arrest judgment on Defendant’s conviction for DWI, as it is a lesser-included offense of serious injury by vehicle for which Defendant was also convicted.
State v. Smith, No. COA22-621 (2024) (unpublished)
Procedural Posture: Defendant brought what the Court interpreted as the functional equivalent of a post-sentencing MAR due in part to her attorney not advising her of the collateral consequences on her out-of-state driver’s license.
Holding: The Court rejected the Defendant’s attempt to analogize her attorney’s lack of explanation regarding the collateral consequences of her license to the immigration collateral consequences addressed by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010).
Practice Tip: For any client with an out of state driver’s license refer them to an attorney in the client’s home state to discuss licensing consequences. Consider using the National College of DUI Defense Member Directory.
-
On today’s episode, Jake resumes the Warriors on the Battlefield Series with the highly entertaining Lex-Jordan Ibegbu. Jordan has built a truly amazing criminal defense practice through a combination of hard work, networking, and showcasing his individuality (i.e. brand). Don’t miss Jordan’s engaging tips for launching your law firm to new heights!
Highlights:
· Discover how to make your brand to be unique and memorable.
· Listen to Jordan explain how he attacks appreciable impairment at trial.
· Learn how to build your client base through networking.
· Uncover why Jordan believes that he has to consistently deliver better than expected results for his clients.
- Se mer
