Joshua Hale, California DUI Attorney (Interview Transcript):

 

Rich Jacobs of myDUIAttorney.org sits down with Josh Hale, a San Diego DUI attorney and finds out his views on DUI specialists, the future of DUI law, and what you should look for when hiring a DUI attorney. This is a must-read for anyone facing a DUI charge and in the process of hiring a lawyer in San Diego, California or the United States.

 

RJ: How many cases have you handled and in what time period?

 

JH: I’m going to preface this with saying, that’s lots of DUI Attorneys, the first thing they say is “I’ve handled thousands and thousands, and I’ve done it in a very short time period.” My office has handled several hundred and that’s been in a four year time period. I’ve been a practicing attorney for five years. The reason I wanted to preface what I said is because it’s not how many cases you’ve handled, so much as, do you have good results? My office has had very good results, whether it’s luck or skill, we’ve had good results. I know many attorneys that handle loads and loads of these things, and basically all of their cases have the same result. Insofar as what result is, I’ll let you figure it out on your own.

 

RJ: For every client that comes to you, do you take every client or are you pretty selective?

 

JH: I wouldn’t say that I’m pretty selective. I don’t take every client, there’s some cases where I don’t think it’s of value or benefit to the client for me to take their case, and I’m very blunt in that, I’ll say “Look, this case is not the kind of case that I think we would have good results with,” and then I basically let the client decide. It’s not that I say “I’m not going to take the case,” it’s more a matter of saying, “I don’t think this is a real great case to take for these reasons. I can take your money, and I can take it to court, and get you through the process but the problem with that is we may not have real great results based on the facts of the case.” Because of that I think I’m selective insofar as I tell the client what to expect. Some attorneys don’t do that, they’re so hungry for the next case or what really tends to be the next ATM withdrawal, I don’t think that they’re fair to the future clients, they don’t tell the client if it’s a good case to work on or not, they just say “Well, what’s your credit card number”. And I don’t do that. I don’t think that’s fair to my clients, and I don’t think that’s fair to my reputation.

 

RJ: Following on from that, do your clients need a DUI specialist in your opinion?

 

JH: I go back and forth on that quite honestly. There are some attorneys that are DUI specialists that are great, they are people that I would recommend my clients go to if they were not going to go to me. And there are the attorneys out there that get the DUI specialist certification because they want more clients. They do it basically because they know that they can charge more for the same service. Most of the time, I would say, you want an attorney who you can trust – what their titles or certifications are are really irrelevant. If you do not trust your attorney, if you do not feel good about your representation, then you need a new attorney. The title that he has or the certification that he or she has is a way to make you feel comfortable, and it’s a way that you are likely going to feel better about your representation just purely for the certification. However, that doesn’t mean that they are going to represent you in a manner that you are going to feel comfortable with. Talk to your attorney. Talk to them, and let them know what you want, what you expect out of the representation, and they’re going to answer you. They’re going to answer you either in a way that makes you feel comfortable or in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. If they make you feel uncomfortable, go on to the next guy, go on to the next lady that makes you feel that you’re going to be represented fairly.

 

RJ: In your firm, who actually goes to court for your clients cases?

 

JH: Absent something drastic happening, I have never missed a court date myself. There are attorneys out there, that that’s not the same. I go for every single client, I go for every single case, and one thing I can tell you about my case load and the way that I work with my office is, you are not going to have me dealing with twenty DUIs in the same day. I go to court for my clients, and I go for one client at a time. If I have two clients on the same day I will, I will reschedule one of them because I don’t think they are getting my full attention.

 

RJ: Does your office handle only DUI, or does your office do other areas of law?

 

JH: We don’t do only DUI and that goes back to DUI specialists. DUI specialists, the way their certification works is that they can only handle DUI cases. So what happens if there’s a case where there’s a DUI, and you happen to have your gun collection in the car or let’s say you happen to have something that’s illegal on top of the DUI, does that mean that they can’t represent you, or does that mean that they’re not going to be able to represent you to the best of their ability. It’s saying something, what it’s actually saying, I can’t really say, but I can tell you my office is equipped to handle your case whether it’s a DUI, whether it’s a criminal charge, or whether two year’s from now you have another type of case, you can call me and say, “Hey, Mr. Hale, Josh, I have a divorce, I have a small business litigation, I have something else happening in my life, I’ve got a good relationship with you, can you handle my other case?” and I can very easily say “Yes, I can handle whatever you need, or if I can’t handle it, I will find someone who can.”

 

RJ: Turning back to DUI specifically, is there any typical DUI defendant? Are there more men than women, or more first-time offenders?

 

JH: I think you’re going to find that there’s a lot of first-time offenders, and you’re going to find beyond that a plethora of different types of people. You’re going to find what I would say are people that are just like you and me, they are fine, upstanding individuals that are professional and they are not out there to do something wrong, they are not out there to do something that is illegal, that’s not what their intent was at the start of the day. They got caught doing something that maybe they shouldn’t have been doing, but that doesn’t mean that they are a bad person. In terms of the standard client, beyond a lot of them being first-time DUI defendants, there’s really no defining characteristic, it’s not that you are going to find lots of men, or lots of women, lots of eighteen year olds or forty-five year olds. I’ve had everything from kids fresh out of high school, that are not twenty-one yet, and they have other issues because they are not twenty-one, to people that are like you and me that are professionals, to airplane pilots that if they get a DUI then they’re going to lose their ability to work because they lose their license. I have had military DUIs that are also looking at non-judicial punishment (NJP). There’s as many different DUI clients as there is anything else in the world and the neat part and the sad part about it is my office is able to handle any type of DUI defendant, but we’re also there because we understand that it’s not just one type of person, we’re going to try to work on your case on an individual basis.

 

RJ: What percentage of your clients have blood alcohol content levels that are close to the legal limit, versus much higher than that?

 

JH: You’re going to find that there are a lot of DUI defendants that are right at .07, .08, or .09 but the prosecutors are not going to just let you because you were just .01 under the legal limit. There job is to, I guess make life as miserable as possible for people whether they are actually committing a crime or not because if they are under .08 they may not be driving under the influence legally. In terms of everything else, it’s pretty rare to find someone that is above .15, .20, that means someone is probably pretty inebriated even under the circumstances, someone at .08 blood alcohol may not be.

 

RJ: What percentage of the DUI cases that you’ve fought have gone to trial versus settled out of court?

 

JH: I think you’re going to find that on any of these cases, most of them do not go to trial. It’s not a matter of the percentages, it’s a matter more of the police report, it’s a matter of the attorney’s ability to represent his client effectively, and I think you’re going to find that a good attorney that has a good case may not need to fight it at trial. They may be able to get the case handled well before that, they may be able to get it handled through negotiations, they may be able to get it handled through motions, so you may not have to go to trial to get it handled. At the same time, the cases that are just no good, they are just dog cases, you’re not going to be able to win the case no matter what you do, and it doesn’t matter how good the attorney is, those cases you’re going to want to do what you can to mitigate the damages, your going to see if you can prevent them from having to go to jail, you’re going to see if you can prevent them from having to do lots and lots of public work service. If they are having financial problems, you’re going to see if you can get them on a payment plan for any fine that they have. You need to look at each client on an individual basis, and that’s what my office tries to do.

 

RJ: What is your best tip when someone has just been pulled over and know that they have had a few drinks?

 

JH: I say this not because I’m a defense attorney, not because I am any type of attorney, or even because of my personal feelings toward the police. When you get over for DUI, the policeman is not your friend. He’s not your buddy, he’s not someone that you should be doing a whole lot of talking to, he’s not there to help you prevent yourself from getting a DUI. He’s there for one reason, to collect evidence against you, to arrest you, to put you in jail, and to give you a criminal record. So for that reason, I guess the best thing you can do is give him your license, if he asks questions, you simply say, “Officer, I don’t think I need to answer that.” The only thing that you do need to do when you get pulled over, is you do need to take a blood or breath test, it doesn’t mean you need to take the preliminary alcohol screen that he has right with him, a blood or breath test is done at the police station, or at the jail, you can’t refuse that because you’ll lose your license for a longer period of time. However, apart from that you don’t need to do the field sobriety tests, you don’t need to do the PAS (preliminary alcohol screen), you don’t need to say anything. All you need to do is say, “Here’s my license, I don’t want to answer any questions. I do not refuse to do the blood or breath test at the station but I do not want to do any preliminary screening here at the scene”. All of those are not done so they can help you out of a DUI, they are being done so they can charge you with a DUI. So don’t do them.

 

RJ: So what kind of help can you provide to DUI defendants? Can you possibly reduce their time in jail, or reduce the amount of fees they pay?

 

JH: This is an individualized question and that is attorney-speak for wiggle room, lots of attorneys don’t want to answer that, but the truth is, every case is different. That being said, when there is something that I’m able to do, let’s say reduced jail time, reduced fines, reduce the amount of time that you don’t have a license, if there’s other charges, reduce the amount of time that you’re going to jail for the other charges, if that ends up being the case. Yes, that happens pretty frequently, I hate to say that happens one in two, or two in three, it’s a very individualized matter. With that being said, my office’s ability to have charges reduced, or jail time reduced, or something done for my client, is pretty strong, I can’t say that it’s 100% obviously but I would that either through skill or luck, I have had pretty good results for my clients. But I’d hate to give you a number just because it depends on the case. In terms of what my historical number has been in cases where there is a good legal argument, I’d say anywhere between 50-100% I’ve been able to get some sort of result for my client.

 

RJ: For clients in the military, is it different for them?

 

JH: As I said, clients in the military have what’s called non-judicial punishment, sometimes they can be looking at things like court marshal but most of the time they are looking at NJP, what that means on an individual basis, they are going to be going in front of court, they are going to be going in front of the DMV, and they are also going to be going in front of their commanding officers for non-judicial punishment. NJP can be anything from a demotion in rank, time without pay, it can be a lot of different things, depending on the officer, depending on the client, we’ve had luck with everything from no non-judicial punishment even when they ended up being convicted on the civil side, to having them have some sort of NJP that is less than what they were originally looking at. The difference with military is that there’s no set criteria for what that NJP is. It depends on where they are stationed, who their commanding officers are, and their relationship with those commanding officers. It also depends on their commanding officers general feelings about their clients having attorneys. Some officers do not want them, some officers are pleased that the person is taking the case so seriously that they brought an attorney with them. It depends. But yes, it is different because they are looking at three sets of punishment, not just two.

 

RJ: So is it wise to take a DUI case to trial or is it better to settle out of court, if it’s not an aggravated set of circumstances, but more of a run-of-the-mill type of case?

 

JH: As I said before, most of these cases do not going to trial. But on the other hand it depends on what’s at stake. As I said before, I’ve had a couple of clients who were pilots where if they lost their license they would have an inability to work for at least a year. That’s a long time. And when the stake are that high I think it’s smart to go to trial or get something reduced, whether that’s the charging code, or sometimes I’ve been able to get them charged with a different crime so they get a different set of penalties that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. It really depends on what the stakes are, because when you go to trial it costs a lot of money, and that’s not just for the attorney, it costs a lot money through and through, and it’s a gamble, you’re not necessarily going to win, you’re not necessarily going to lose at trial. It’s a roll of the dice.

 

RJ: In your experience what have you learned about people’s behavior about being arrested, prosecuted, and called a criminal?

 

JH: I think there are several different things. I think that the first thing that each of my clients say is “The police report says something that’s just not true.” What that says to me is that if each client is saying that, then there’s something wrong with the system. Someone is saying, go ahead and write whatever you like on the police report because we want a conviction. That’s not right, that’s just plain and simple not right, and I think that each of my clients that go through that, it’s very sad and very frustrating for them, because they trust these police people, whether it’s somebody who’s been on the force for a year, or someone who’s been on the force for 20 years, they expect those people to be above reproach. And the truth is that in many of these cases, something is in the police report that just plain did not happen, and for that reason it’s tough because my client is now being called a criminal, the police report is made by a police person for all intents is the person who the court tends to believe, whether that’s the judge or whether that goes to jury. One of the things I’ve heard at jury level is “Well, they wouldn’t be going to trial if they weren’t guilty” and that’s just not true. In terms of the actual clients, there’s a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, and that goes to those that are just plain guilty, or those that should probably not be charged with a DUI. It’s very frustrating for those clients that probably should be charged with a DUI because I can’t just make the case disappear, that’s not the way it works, but what I can do fight for them to see what I can do on the back end.

 

RJ: What do you think is the greatest source of fear for people? Is it the loss of license, is jail time, is it the shame of the offence?

 

JH: I think you have the shame, a lot of people don’t ever want to tell anyone that they were charged with a DUI or that they were convicted of a DUI. The sad part about that is, that if you really look at the numbers, probably one of your friends, or maybe someone reading this interview right now, they’ve been charged with a DUI and it’s not an uncommon charge. I think that that’s one of the big fears is how is everyone else going to look at you when all is said and done. I think the other thing is, it just costs a lot of money. People are having a hard time, the economy right now is just tough and they’re spitting out a lot of money, whether it’s for the attorneys, whether it’s for the court fees, the fines, the classes, and it ends up being a lot of money. And that’s a source of fear too because jobs can be hard to come by.

 

RJ: Do you feel that the current DUI laws are too harsh or too lax, and why?

 

JH: I think I’m going to back off from that question a little bit, and the reason is there’s a reason why it’s against the law, and I think we all understand that. I think the problem is not whether the punishments are too lax or too stringent, or whether they are somewhere in between, I think the problem is the way we charge DUIs, you have people that may not be under the influence at a .08 blood alcohol level. They may not have had any bad driving, they may not have had said anything wrong, they may have passed all their tests with flying colors, and they are still being convicted. I think the problem is that in some places we have prosecutors that are trying to find justice, my feeling that is in California in particular, prosecutors are trying to get convictions. They are not trying to find out whether the person was actually driving under the influence, they are just saying “Hey, tough luck Charlie” and I think that that’s a big problem, more so on whether the punishments are too harsh. The punishments may be just right so long as we are convicting the right people.

 

RJ: If someone has a .08 blood alcohol level, are they really under the influence? Is that a fair limit would you say?

 

JH: .08 is the legal level. If you’re above .08, you’re driving under the influence, it doesn’t matter whether you are inebriated or not. With that being said, .08 depending on the person’s size, someone with my size, I’m around 200 lbs, .08 could be one and half beers or one strong beer in under an hour, if you are a 200lb guy one beer in an hour may not do a whole lot to you in terms of level of inebriation, and that’s going on just the general feeling “boy, I don’t feel drunk”. Also, there’s experts that say, one beer may not as impair someone as much as we previously thought. That doesn’t mean that they’re not legally under the influence, but there’s a difference between being legally under the influence and the second charge to driving actually under the influence. There’s two charges when you are charged with DUI, an “A” and a “B” count, one is the .08 that everyone knows, the other is driving under the influence, some people may not be under the influence at .08, and some people may be under the influence at .04. It’s really a very personal thing, and because of that they went to a .08 number but I don’t know that that number is necessarily fair for all circumstances.

 

RJ: What do you see as the future of DUI in terms of punishments and numbers of offenders?

 

JH: I see it going up. I see it continuing to go up until we as a society check ourselves and say is this really causing the problems that we think it is. The problem with DUI is what happens when someone has an accident with DUI or they hurt someone while under the influence – it’s a horrible thing, it’s a dirty shame – and it shouldn’t happen. But with that being said, I think where we’re at in terms of our state and maybe even our country, is the states are having problems with money and DUIs are a quick way to get basically a couple of thousand dollars from one of their tax payers without having to fight for it. All they have to do is say “You’re guilty, please cough up a chunk of change.” I don’t say that to be funny. I say that because I really see that as a source of revenue for the state rather than a source of punishment, or a source of correcting bad behaviors. The punishment doesn’t necessarily correct bad behaviors and because of that then if it doesn’t correct it then there’s obviously something wrong with that, our society is not necessarily about punishment, but about preventing bad behavior, and that may not necessarily stop other people from having the same experiences.

 

RJ: What would be the ballpark cost of a DUI case that went to trial versus one that didn’t go to trial?

 

JH: I preface this with saying that there are a lot of different quality attorneys out there. With an attorney that you can really feel confident with, I’d say the ballpark pre-trial cost would be somewhere between $4000 and $7500. You’ve go to look at it just as plain old time. An attorney charges anywhere from $250 to $400 an hour on average, and if someone is charging say $300 and the cost is $4000, then that’s around 12-13 hours. That’s not a whole lot of time on a case, but it is enough time to work and fight a case up to trial. On the other side, after you get to the point where you’re going to trial, you’re looking probably at around $2500 to $5000 for every day of trial. These trials can last anywhere from a couple of days up to a week, I would say most last 2-3 days, and I would say a fair charge for that would be $2500 - $4500 a day. I’m somewhere right in the middle of that. You’ve also got to pay for a forensic toxicologist too, and a good forensic toxicologist costs several thousand dollars to testify, and they’ve got to look at the blood and breath, so because of that you’re going to looking at a lot of money both before and during trial. That’s why I was saying you have to look at what’s at risk whether or not you should go to trial, because with most of these cases it costs a lot of money to go trial, and the results may not be any better when all is said and done. So you want an attorney whose going to be blunt and honest with you because going to trial is really in the attorneys interest, it may not be in the clients.

 

RJ: How much do you charge for a DMV hearing, and is it typical to charge for this?

 

JH: I know attorneys that do, but my office does not as I don’t feel that is fair to the client. The DMV hearing is a hearing you can do on the phone if you so chose, it can also be done in person, the defendant can testify, a lot of times they do not because anything they say can and will be held against them in a court of law because they have now lost their right to remain silent when they testify during the DMV hearing. Anything they say can be transferred over to the court. In terms of just the cost, I don’t charge anything extra for that, I think it’s a fair part of what I do to represent my clients at that hearing as well with no extra cost.

 

RJ: What do you feel really makes your firm unique when providing DUI defense?

 

JH: There’s two things that make my firm unique. The first is, I’m very, very blunt, and very, very honest with my clients. I do not feel it’s fair to give my clients anything less than 100% truth, and that’s the good with the bad. Not all attorneys are that way, some attorneys feel it’s necessary to protect their client, and by protecting them they are not really telling them what they are facing from the get-go. I would rather a client not work with me because they do not like the truth from the get-go, rather than choose to work with me because I gave them a pair of rosy-colored glasses to start the case with. So I’m very honest with my clients and I think I get a lot of respect from my clients because I am so honest and I think that’s a fairly unique thing in this field, someone who is as blunt as I am.

 

In terms of the second thing, I’m always the one who is going to court, I don’t pass the buck, I don’t send anyone else. The only reason I would not be going to court is if I was in the hospital and I’m sure there’s some other circumstance that could prevent me but the truth is I’ve never missed a court date for a client, whether I’m sick or not. I don’t think it’s fair to give my client anything less than 110%.

 

RJ: What personal statement would you make to all potential and future clients that are out there reading this interview, that are considering hiring you as their attorney?

 

JH: Talk to me. It’s real simple – talk. Talk to the attorney that you intend to hire, or talk to five attorneys. Talk to them and find out they are what they say they are. You want to know that this attorney is going to represent you to the best of his ability and that he’s going to represent you strenuously. Ask questions of the attorney, and if he doesn’t answer them in a satisfactory manner, go to the next guy. The truth is, I’m here to help you, and I want to help you, I want to earn your business but I’m going to do that by being blunt and honest with you, and I want you to understand that that’s why you are working with me. You’re not working with me because I fed you a story, you’re working with me because you see me as someone who can fight for you, and if you’re talking to somebody else on the phone, ask the same questions, and if you don’t like their answers, call me

 

To hire Josh Hale, visit www.HeSoCal.com or call 619.365.9532, or to find an attorney in your local area, visit our home page

 

Watch Josh Hale's Interview HERE >>