The Columbia, Howard County, Maryland-based law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, is highly-regarded and well-respected for its successful representation over many years of DUI and DWI arrestees in the state. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016.
We know that some people do not feel they need a lawyer to represent them in their first-offense
DUI or DWI case. They are wrong. THEY DO !
Quite frankly, neither judges nor anyone else in the courthouse wants to see a DUI/DWI defendant struggle through a failing effort to represent themselves against charges in which a guilty verdict could send them to jail for a period of time, for which expungement will most likely not be an option, and which will most likely seriously affect their driving privileges, their family,and their employment.
DUIs and DWIs are serious offenses. Think about it … then call us for a consultation.
The Maryland-based national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, is highly-regarded and well-respected for its successful representation of clients charged in Maryland with DUI/DWI offenses. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at email@example.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Let me be perfectly clear : Self-representation by a defendant in his or her DUI/DWI case is a very BAD idea !!!
Certainly in Maryland, as well as in most other states, judges do not want defendants to come into their courtrooms and face charges in which they could be subject to jail time, such as DUIs and DWIs , without attorney representation. Further, prosecutors will not be lenient with the DUI/DWI defendant just because they do not have an attorney. Both judges and prosecutors want proficient defense attorneys involved to make the judicial process more just, fair and efficient for everyone involved — and particularly for the defendant.
The key reason for this is that DUIs and DWIs are serious offenses. And, in most if not all cases, they are not expungeable. Once the defendant is found guilty, they are branded and stuck with the decision.
Additionally, DUI and DWI cases usually involve a lot of paperwork just to get the defendant’s driving privileges, to deal with the fines, court costs, alcohol education programs and other mandatory issues. Contact and interaction will have to be made with Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration for driving license reinstatement.
I know some people feel they do not need competent legal representation in these cases. THEY DO !
I have found that most people understand this point better when we explain it to them.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, is a highly-regarded Maryland-based national lead-paint defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact our lawyers and counselors at firstname.lastname@example.org (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. This blog is intended for informational purposes only, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
As a lead-paint defense attorney who has successfully represented numerous landlords, property owners, and property management agencies in Baltimore for several years, I can safely say from experience that Baltimore City has a lead-paint poisoning public health problem. The most important step the Baltimore community can take to save the City’s children from lead poisoning is to prevent lead exposure before it occurs.
To be sure, protecting Baltimore’s children from exposure to lead is critical to their lifelong good health. Frequently, even low levels of lead in the blood of infants can have deleterious effects on the child’s IQ, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement.
Lead can be found in a variety of sources, including:
* paint in homes built before 1978.
* water pumped through leaded pipes.
* imported items including clay pots.
* certain consumer products such as candies, make-up, and jewelry.
* certain imported home remedies.
The potential or actual Baltimore residential property landlord should be aware of the following, inter alia :
– If the rental house was built before 1950, the house 9if not occupied by the owner0 falls under the Reduction of Lead in Housing Act, which protects tenants and imposes certain duties on landlords. In addition, owners of houses built between 1950 and 1978 may also participate in this lead poisoning prevention.
– A good reference resource is the Maryland Department of the Environment’s ( MDE’s) “Lead line” website.
– A shared feature of Federal and Maryland state lead poisoning laws is that both require landlords to give each tenant the pamphlet, ” Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home”.
Maryland law also requires distribution by landlords of an additional pamphlet titled ” Lead Poisoning Prevention – Notice of Tenants’ Rights”.
– Routinely and consistently check the property for chipping, peeling, or flaking paint .
– Follow diligently the Maryland Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, enacted in 1994 by the Maryland General Assembly with the purpose of reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning while maintaining the stock of affordable rental housing. The program is administered by the MDE.
The law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, is a highly-regarded Maryland-based national lead paint poisoning defense firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at email@example.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Maryland’s Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing ( MRLRH) law requires owners of rental properties built before 1950 to register their units with the Maryland department of the Environment (MDE), to distribute specific educational materials, and to meet specific lead paint risk reduction standards at certain triggering events. Caveat Emptor.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, at (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
MUMMERT vs. ALIZADEH, — A.3d —, 2013, WL 5663105 ( Md. 2013). On October 18, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals — the state’s highest court —delivered a precedential ruling on the applicability of the state’s limitation and repose statutes to lawsuits for wrongful death that allegedly resulted from medical malpractice.
Facts: A family doctor failed to address his patient’s cancer symptoms between 1997 and 2004.
In 2004, the patient was diagnosed with cancer that could not be treated successfully. The patient died of cancer on March 14th, 2008. On March 8th, 2011, the patient’s surviving family members
filed a wrongful death action against the doctor, who claimed in defense that the wrongful death action was time-barred. The defendant doctor relied on the Maryland 3-year statute of limitations period set for wrongful death actions generally and on Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act that sets two alternative expiration dates for lawsuits against physicians : within ” (1) Five years of the time the injury was committed, or (2) within three years of the date the injury was discovered.” [ Section 5-109 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code].
The trial court dismissed both defenses and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their lawsuit.
The trial court properly ruled that the wrongful death action — that amasses all death-related damages — had not expired because it was filed six days prior to the end of the 3-year limitations period. The also dismissed the doctor’s defensive claims for other unrelated reasons.
The trial court also properly ruled that the repose statute does not bar the plaintiffs ‘ wrongful death action because it refers to suits for ” injury” as opposed to ” death”. The Court opined that medical malpractice that kills the patient is not subject to repose.
For an initial courtesy consultation , contact us at the Maryland-headquartered national medical malpractice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, at email@example.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
$5,000,000.00 Settlement Recovery – Pediatric Medical Malpractice — Failure to diagnose seizure in 7-year old — Brain Infarct — Inability to speak — Severe aggravation of cognitive deficits — Permanent need for wheelchair — Prior history of seizure disorder and developmental delays.
This medical malpractice case involved a then 7-year old plaintiff with a history of seizure disorders and severe asthma. The plaintiff ‘s contention is that he suffered a two and a half-hour seizure during 3 days of intubation [breathing tube inserted into the trachea or windpipe to assist in breathing]., which also necessitated the use of paralytic agents. The plaintiff maintained that although the typical shaking that would accompany a seizure was masked by the paralytic agents and sedatives, the defendants should have realized from a severe increase in vital signs such as blood pressure and heart rate that did not respond to medication expected to reduce pain, and thereby lower vital signs, that the child was suffering a seizure.
The brain has a fivefold need for oxygen during a seizure. The plaintiff contended that although the pulse oximeter did not show signs of abnormalities, the failure to properly treat the seizure resulted in it continuing for this two and a half-hour period, during which the brain was deprived of an extensive amount of oxygen, thus causing a brain infarct (occlusion).
The case settled before trial for $ 5 million.