Chicago DUI lawyer says it's still important to have a lawyer at traffic court

This Chicago DUI lawyer has posted here and here on the importance of having a knowledgeable lawyer represent you. Watching too much Law & Order or any number of judge shows has caused people to believe that just because they have a Constitutional right to represent themselves, even if the penalty is death, they should. There's a reason you have to have approximately nineteen years of school plus pass a two day exam in order to practice law. These thoughts are in response to a journalist (ok I don't think he has a law license) suggesting to his readers that they should go to traffic court without a lawyer.

Nov. 6, Chicago, Il

This has not kept the city from continuing to accept the guilty pleas -- and cash the checks -- from the vast majority of accused speeders who dispose of their tickets by just mailing in the fine or going to traffic school.

For those who go to court, on the other hand, it's simply a matter of waiting for their name to be called and the judge to hand them back their driver's license, no questions asked and little if any explanation given.

"This is a LIDAR case," an assistant Corporation Counsel told Judge George Scully Jr. one day last week as the next defendant's name was called. With that, Scully pulled the driver's license from the ticket to which it was stapled and returned the license to the defendant, sending her on her way.

I watched this happen again and again without fail during the past week in the courtrooms in the Daley Center basement where minor city traffic cases are heard. Defendants gratefully exited court with wallets intact, most of them clueless about what had transpired.

Occasionally, a judge would say something like "the city cannot meets its burden of proof," by way of explanation before handing over the driver's license.

Some defendants had hired the hallway lawyers who hang around Traffic Court to represent them, not realizing they were receiving the same outcome as those who didn't have a lawyer, except they had to pay the lawyer.

"Hey, I make a living off this stuff," one lawyer told me when I brought it up.

He said he deserves to continue to make money from such clients because he "invented" the defense now being used to squelch all the LIDAR cases -- by citing a Downstate appellate court opinion that was the first to call for a scientific review of the LIDAR technology.

The journalist is clear this applies to LIDAR tickets at Daley Center. I already know some folks won't read it that way. They just see the part that some lawyers will take your money knowing that the case will be dismissed. If only it was always that simple in traffic court at the Daley Center.

Today, I had my traffic ticket dismissed in the Daley Center. Unfortunately for the non-lawyers, there was some very specific legal knowledge that I had that led to the dismissal. It could not be garnered from watching television or saying to the judge hey I hear y'all are dismissing tickets so you should dismiss mine. I also knew what to do besides thank the judge after the City dismissed my ticket--again it's a bit of legal knowledge.

Finally, I know just how serious those minor tickets can become. I have had many clients get their tickets and pay them through the mail or come to court and plead guilty. They didn't know the legal consequences that could suspend or revoke their driving privileges later. Heck, I've had many clients with serious cases believe the charge was not serious at all because it wasn't a DUI and there wasn't an accident. That's why you need a lawyer. For what it's worth, I'm not the lawyer mentioned in the article.