First Time DUI Offense in Arizona: Why You Need a Good Defense

If you are charged with a DUI offense, you need to know what the law is in that particular state. Arizona residents and visitors need to understand things like the blood alcohol content in Arizona, how much jail time they can receive and more. To learn a little bit more about Arizona DUI laws, you should read below and learn the ins and outs. The tips in this article will revolve around people who are first time DUI offenders, so consider these points.  

#1: Hire a Great DUI lawyer

If you are charged with a DUI in Arizona, you should get in touch with many different DUI lawyers that practice in Arizona to know exactly what you can expect when charged with a DUI.  During your consultation, the attorney should explain the legal process and what the attorney can do for you. Ask about the cost for legal representation and payment options, so that you know that you're able to afford a private attorney. Make sure we are comfortable with the attorney.  Will this attorney be handling your case or will the case be handed off to someone else?  Be sure the attorney will be available to answer all your questions when you have them.  Communication with your attorney is the up-most importance.  

#2: Understand Arizona DUI laws

Each and every state has its own DUI laws, so as an Arizona resident or visitor that was charged, you need to learn as much as you can about how they handle these particular cases. Start by understanding the blood-alcohol content limits and the sentencing ramifications.  Also learn want this will do to your driver’s license and insurance rates. The effects of a DUI are quite onerous  

#3: Be ready for the process

Since this is your first time being charged with a DUI, you need to do everything that you can to make sure that you are ready for the process and assist your attorney in the process. Get ready to appear in court and have your attorney fight and negotiate for you. This is why it is so important to hire a great lawyer, because you will be leaning on them and trusting them for a lot of the work that they do. Patience and knowledge of the process will go a long way toward helping you out during this time.  

Some of the Fines, Costs and Penalties Associated With a First Time DUI Misdemeanor:

• Up to $2500 in fines for the first offense
• Screen tests and counseling classes up to $500
• May need an ignition interlock device installation up to $1,200
• Possible requirement to purchase SR-22 insurance - up to $3,000/year in additional insurance costs and maintain for 1-3 years
• Driver’s license suspension of anywhere between 90 to 360 days
• Possible probation
• Possible community service hours
• Possible jail time 1 Day to 6 Months
• Getting charged with a second DUI or multiple DUI offenses, these fines and penalties become significantly harsher

  These three tips outline exactly what you can expect from your first DUI if you are a resident or visitor to the State of Arizona. This is a great starting point that you should keep in mind so that you are able to make the most out of your case and get the proper DUI defense representation that you need. To make sure that this happens, follow these points the best that you can and be patient throughout the rest of the legal process. These charges are very serious. You may be facing a misdemeanor DUI or a felony DUI depending on several factors during the DUI arrest. I can help you through this crisis. I personally answers my own phone and will personally handle your case. Contact Robert A. Dodell, Attorney at Law, directly by email or by calling 480-860-4321 now for a free initial consultation.   Robert A. Dodell, Attorney At Law 10601 N Hayden Rd, #I-103 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480) 860-4321

First Time DUI Offense in Arizona: Why You Need a Good Defense is available on (Robert A. Dodell Attorney At Law) First Time DUI Offense in Arizona: Why You Need a Good Defense first appeared on:

DUI Attorney Scottsdale - Scottsdale Criminal Lawyer | Robert Dodell Law Offices

10601 N Hayden Rd, #I-103

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

(480) 860-4321

https://goo.gl/maps/diwY4pu8X5m

Adult Adoptions

Many people are surprised to hear that adults can be adopted and that turning 18 years old doesn’t necessarily preclude one from that much desired sense of permanency and family. The reasons for an adult adoption vary of course, but most often it’s the result of a close familial relationship that’s existed for years but was never legally formalized. Other reasons may include financial protection for the adult adoptee in the form of inheritance as well as health insurance and social security survivors’ benefits for the adult full-time student. In the State of Arizona, any adult may adopt another adult who is at least eighteen years old but not more than twenty-one years old. The adult person being adopted must also consent to the adoption and be a stepchild, grandchild, niece, nephew or cousin. This even extends to former foster children who were placed as juveniles in the home of the adopting adult and who’ve maintained a continuous familial relationship for five or more years. The court may choose to conduct an investigation requiring a designated person to submit a written report regarding the nature and length of the relationship, the competency of the adopting adult and the adoptee and a determination if the best interests of the parties would be served in granting the adult adoption. The court may even decide if there are interested parties that should be made aware of the adoption proceedings. There are other restrictions and rules of procedure that apply to adult adoptions of course. On the other hand, adult adoptions can be far less complicated than juvenile adoptions. The consent of parents, a government entity or that of any other person is not required in an adult adoption; only the consent of the adoptee is a prerequisite. The process could take several months; however, the judge’s final decree of adoption would most certainly bring significant resolution to a family’s desire for completeness. If you need help or legal assistance with an adult adoption, contact Robert A. Dodell, Attorney at Law, now. Robert provides individual & personalized service through the adoption process. Contact Robert A. Dodell, Attorney at Law, directly by email or by calling 480-860-4321 now for a free initial consultation.

The blog post Adult Adoptions was originally seen on http://www.azcrimlaw.com/ Adult Adoptions first appeared on:

DUI Attorney Scottsdale - Scottsdale Criminal Lawyer | Robert Dodell Law Offices

10601 N Hayden Rd, #I-103

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

(480) 860-4321

https://goo.gl/maps/diwY4pu8X5m

Arizona’s Rules of Professional & Ethical Conduct

The State Bar of Arizona is investigating Maricopa County prosecutor Juan Martinez for possible ethical violations in the Jodi Arias case. His investigation reminds us that the Supreme Court of Arizona disbarred Maricopa County prosecutors Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon and suspended prosecutor Rachel Alexander based on the Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions dated April 10, 2012   The Hearing Panel headed by Judge William J. O’Neil thoroughly reviewed all the evidence and determined that Thomas, Aubuchon, and Alexander had violated several of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (abbreviated “ER”) found in Rule 42 of the Arizona Supreme Court Rules. The information below is taken from Rule 42 and the Opinion and Order. Many of the Rules of Professional Conduct can be found by visiting http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ ER 1.1 states that “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” Thomas, Aubuchon, and Alexander violated ER 1.1 with the RICO Act lawsuit. ER 1.6(a) states that “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.” Thomas violated ER 1.6(a) with the statements in his June 14, 2006 press release on the Dowling and Keen matters. ER 1.7 (a)(1) and (a)(2) mandates that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client or there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. Thomas and Aubuchon violate ER 1.7(a)(1) in obtaining the Court Tour subpoena and with the RICO Act lawsuit along with Alexander. Thomas and Alexander violated ER 1.7(a)(2) by representing the State when there was a significant risk that the representation would be materially limited by Mr. Thomas’s personal interest against Supervisor Stapley. All three violated ER 1.7(a)(2) with the RICO Act lawsuit. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 1.7(a)(2) when they tried to represent the State in the Wilcox prosecution. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 1.7(a)(2) by prosecuting Supervisor Stapley when their personal interests acted as a material limitation on their representation of the State. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 1.7(a)(2) when Ms. Aubuchon presented testimony to a grand jury seeking indictments against Andrew Kunasek, Sandi Wilson, David Smith, Gary Donahoe, and Thomas Irvine. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 1.7(a)(2) when they unlawfully prosecuted Judge Donahoe. ER 3.1 states that “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a good faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Thomas, Aubuchon, and Alexander violated ER 3.1 with the RICO Act lawsuit. ER 3.3(a) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact to a tribunal. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 3.3(a) when Aubuchon filed a motion asserting that “Judge Fields is the complainant in an open and pending State Bar matter that he initiated against County Attorney Thomas.” ER 3.4(c) states that “a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.” All three violated ER 3.4(c) with the RICO Act lawsuit. ER 3.6(a) states that “A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. Thomas violated ER 3.6(a) with the statements in his August 24, 2009 press release. ER 3.8(a) states that “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 3.8(a) when they unlawfully prosecuted Judge Donahoe. ER 4.4(a) states that “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden any other person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.” Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 4.4(a) when they pursued criminal charges against Supervisor Stapley. They also violated it when they obtained the Court Tower subpoena and when they prosecuted Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox and Judge Donahoe. All three violated ER 4.4(a) with the RICO Act lawsuit. Thomas violated it when he caused letters to be sent to the Supervisors and County management in December 2009 regarding MCBOS’s engagement of Shughart, Thomson as legal counsel to provide advice concerning conflicts and payment of that firm’s invoices. ER 8.4(b) states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(b) when they unlawfully prosecuted Judge Donahoe. ER 8.4(c) states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(c) when she knowingly failed to inform the grand jury that the State lacked jurisdiction to proceed against Mr. Stapley on many charges. She also violated ER 8.4(c) in communicating with Ms. Flores about the matters on which the grand jurors had voted to “end the inquiry.” Thomas and Aubuchon violated it when they unlawfully prosecuted Judge Donahoe. ER 8.4(d) states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(d) by writing and delivering potentially threatening and intimidating out-of-court letters to Judges Mundell, Baca and retired Judge Fields, with the purpose of ascertaining the decision-making thought processes of Judges Mundell and Baca. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(d) when they charged Supervisor Stapley with fifty-three misdemeanors knowing that the statute of limitations had run on forty-four of them. Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(d) when they unlawfully prosecuted Judge Donahoe. All three violated ER 8.4(d) with the RICO Act lawsuit.   Sometimes a person may run into a prosecutor that is unethical and it is important to have an experienced legal counsel that will stand up for you and your rights. Robert A. Dodell, Attorney At Law has over 30 years as both a former prosecutor and a private practice attorney. Some of my practice areas:

• Criminal Law
• DUI Law
• Domestic Violence Law
• Adoption Law

  If you are already at the Scottsdale Court House and want to find my office, I am approximately 16 minutes from the Scottsdale Court House. See the map below for driving directions from the Scottsdale Court House to my office. https://goo.gl/maps/y2BYmfYhXQF2    

The blog post Arizona’s Rules of Professional & Ethical Conduct Find more on: Robert Dodell at www.azcrimlaw.com Arizona’s Rules of Professional & Ethical Conduct first appeared on:

DUI Attorney Scottsdale - Scottsdale Criminal Lawyer | Robert Dodell Law Offices

10601 N Hayden Rd, #I-103

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

(480) 860-4321

https://goo.gl/maps/diwY4pu8X5m