Alles Law is a criminal defense firm, not a surrender merchant

Many of the most well-known criminal law firms and lawyers have settled into an enormously profitable niche: they work out deals on traffic tickets in high volume. Traffic tickets are by far the most common citations. The firms that have been around longest or do mass marketing are going to naturally field a lot of calls requesting traffic ticket representation. They become, in effect, wholesalers, who deal in turning speeding tickets into improper equipment pleas. It’s fast, it’s low-stress, and it’s lucrative. What’s more, the service they provide is enormously beneficial to the clients it is meant to serve, because the commitment to rapidly making deals allows the firm to offer this service at an extremely low cost.

But what about someone looking at more than a speeding ticket, 0r someone who someone who wants doesn’t want to make a deal? that sort of client just isn’t a great fit for the plea-bargain merchant business model. A lawyer’s instinct to mount a defense weakens once their firm profits more by systematically retreating than by putting up actual resistance,

which is why my focus is on DWI, Domestic Violence, and appeals of District Court convictions or pleas to Superior Court: these are situations where quickly making a deal is almost certainly not the right approach.

Hello, and thank you for visiting the Alles Law, PLLC website. I’m David Alles, the founder of Alles Law, which is a solo law practice. That might change at some point, depending on whether (a) clients who value my approach to the practice of criminal defense law are able to find me, and (b) I can then find other attorneys who are cut from the same cloth.

So, what exactly is my approach? It is, primarily, a commitment to an idea: there’s a difference between giving up and admitting defeat. Show me an attorney that tries every case, and I’ll show you an attorney that does a whole lot of losing; but show me an attorney who wins every case, and I’ll show you an attorney who isn’t taking enough cases to trial. The standard to which I hold myself, and to which I expect my clients to hold me, is that if the white flag comes out, it had better be barely recognizable - we’re talking tattered, singed, and bloodied.

What makes that more than mere words? Isn’t that what every lawyer does? Are you suggesting that other lawyers don’t work as hard or don’t care as much? Actually, not at all. While it may seem strange, the essential ingredient in short supply is creativity. Think of the lawyer as a military strategist standing on a castle rampart. A competent strategist is familiar with the logistics of the defending army- the number of soldiers, the available weaponry,how many days of provisions are within the castle walls - things of that sort. And the same competent strategist can assess the strength of an enemy army as it advances. Based on years of training and diligent study, this competent strategist forms an opinion on the likely outcome when the two sides clash. If the opposing army has superior numbers and weaponry, the strategist makes a reasonable decision to wave the white flag and potentially mitigate the harm.

Now, same situation, but this time the strategist, in addition to being trained, is both resourceful and inventive - or, more simply, creative. How does that change things? Well, the probable outcome employing conventional tactics is near-certain defeat. This time, though, the strategist isn’t limited to conventional tactics, and starts to consider what about the situation is unique. Is the composition of the opposing army exploitable? Is there some other variable in play that muddies things for my opponent? The creative strategist knows that making the enemy General uncomfortable is enormously advantageous. I don’t necessarily have to win if I can make the enemy doubtful about its own chances.

Let’s say the opposing army is basically the Dothraki army from Game of Thrones. Horses everywhere. It dawns on the strategist that it makes sense to literally muddy things for the opposing General. Unexpected orders start going out to the defending forces. You want us to put down our weapons…and pick up a bucket? The enemy General, looking through some medieval spyglass, is, at first, amused and somewhat perplexed by the unusual preparations of the defending army. Then he realizes what is unfolding: the outcome, once nearly certain to be favorable, is incalculable. The defending strategist has not necessarily secured a victory, but is undoubtedly better positioned to fight or negotiate, depending on the preference of his client, the monarch.

If you are at least willing to entertain the idea that creativity is vital to effective advocacy, the question becomes: who gets to decide whether an attorney checks that box? After all, we’ve all met plenty of folks who would swear up and down and shout from the rooftops that they think creatively, even though if they ever had an original thought, it was lonely. Well, for starters, the analogy in the preceding paragraph is dual purpose. It is meant to show both that conveying an idea in a novel way is an effective way to open a listener or reader’s mind to a new idea, as well as to demonstrate an ability to perform the feat. Whether or not you’re still skeptical of the premise for which the story is offered, you can picture it, right? I doubt, very highly, that many attorneys have ever or will ever consider comparing prosecutors to the Dothraki as a way to explore the strategic implications of a a creative idea to a defendant’s trial posture. But if you approached the story with an open mind, you could see the horses slipping in the mud , just like the fictional enemy General, even though the story never said so explicitly.

The reason that I feel comfortable touting the level of creativity I bring to the courtroom and how it advantages my clients is how often I bounce my theory of a case off another attorney, and they immediately don an expression indicating that’s not something I would have considered, but I think it might work. I constantly ask questions that I assume have well-established answers because the questions seem so clearly to touch on a critical issue; then I come to find that not only is there no definite answer - the question itself does not seem to have ever been asked. The absence of clear precedent is enormously favorable to an attorney who thrives in a contest of new ideas.

Creative advocacy is one of the only reliable ways to even the odds. And, believe me, the state is stacking the deck in its own favor; meanwhile, civilians take comfort and place their faith in sweet nothings: innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt - wonderful sentiments. But where’s the evidence that these ideals are more than mere words? Call me cynical, but that’s just not what I see. There’s a quote from the North Carolina Constitution on the wall at the Justice Center in Wake County. It reads, “right and justice for all shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.” You might get to stare at it some time while you are standing in a long line to go through metal detectors, watching the police walk right past you in their own special lane. In addition to skipping the security line, the police get paid to be here, and they park for free right outside the building. Despite how convenient the Court has made it for the police to come to court, they still don’t show up a lot of the time. “Oh, that’s great news!” you might think. “Surely the Court will dismiss the charge when the officer doesn’t bother to show up unexcused on the date they were scheduled to be in court; after all, I had to take the day off work to avoid being called and failed, which would have resulted in the Court issuing an order for my arrest.” Oh, my sweet summer child. That’s a free continuance for the state. They’ll let you plead guilty to something if you want. They’ll say, “well this was just a first setting.” Well if you didn’t have to be there, shouldn’t someone have told you? Oh wait, that’s because you did have to be there. The first setting excuse doesn’t apply to everyone. This next part is even better: There’s a decent chance that the next time around, the officer or a key witness won’t be there yet again. The prosecutor will tell the judge the witness wasn’t subpoenaed or the officer is busy doing something that clearly matters more than whatever you would have done if you didn’t have to come to court. Well who’s fault is that?! YOU scheduled this. As unfair as it seems - and it seems that way because it is that way - with very few exceptions, the state’s motion to continue will be granted. Again. If anyone would like to explain to me how the reality of the actual day-to-day practices is consistent with the idea of justice being “administered without favor, denial, or delay,” please begin by letting me know which one you are, a Law Enforcement Officer or a District Attorney.