A recent survey of 2023 rates from top firms reveal attorney hourly rate increases of 8-14%. Notably, top partner rates now range from $2,100 to $2,720 an hour. The bottom partner rates from $1,025 to $1,995 per hour. Even more telling, first year associates, those lawyers who have just passed the Bar exam and have little to no real life experience in the practice of law, range from $660 to $895 per hour.

Most cases handled by big law firms are layered with multiple attorneys, ranging from young associates to upper class associates to junior and senior partners. Add all their rates together and you can have billings at tens of thousands of dollars an hour. There are additional costs as well, from paralegals with rates from $200 to $400 per hour or more, to discovery platforms that can costs thousands of dollars per month. Major corporations, high net worth individuals and the like can afford to pay, or have Directors and Officers insurance that pays, for these firms.

When facing criminal charges, the stakes are incredibly high. The attorney you choose can mean the difference between freedom and conviction. While larger law firms may seem to offer the best defense due to their size and resources, smaller boutique criminal defense firms present unique advantages that can significantly benefit clients. Here’s why the boutique firm of Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is your best ally in the fight for justice.

Personalized Attention

At Stahl Gasiorowski we handle fewer cases at a time compared to big law firms. This allows for a level of personalized attention that can be pivotal in criminal cases. The intimate setting ensures that your legal team knows your case inside out and is always accessible to address your concerns. You’re not just another case number; you’re a valued client with a bespoke defense strategy tailored to your unique circumstances.

Specialized Expertise

Stahl Gasiorowski specializes in criminal defense. Our attorneys are passionate about this area of law and have dedicated their careers to perfecting their craft. Such narrow focus results in a depth of knowledge and a nuanced understanding of criminal law that’s hard to match. This expertise offers keen insights into prosecution tactics, familiarity with local court nuances, and a refined skill in crafting compelling defense strategies.

Agility and Adaptability

The types of criminal cases Stahl Gasiorowski typically handle are complex that require extensive research and review a large amounts of discovery. Skill, combined with experience and flexibility, allow us to maximize our effectiveness. We are agile, able to adapt and respond rapidly to new developments without the layers of bureaucracy that can slow down larger firms. Our structure allows us to pivot strategies and tactics swiftly, a vital asset during the high-stress proceedings of criminal defense.

Cost-Effectiveness

Since Stahl Gasiorowski only handles complex federal and state criminal matters, we are able to operate with lower overheads and, as a result, can offer more cost-effective pricing structures without compromising the quality of legal defense. This means clients have access to high-caliber legal services and a dedicated defense without the daunting costs often associated with the larger firms.

Direct Expert Representation

At Stahl Gasiorowski, clients receive representation from highly skilled, experienced attorneys, not junior associates learning on the job. This means that your case is in the hands of an experienced attorney from start to finish, bringing a level of advocacy and proficiency that can be crucial in criminal cases.

Building a Strong Attorney-Client Relationship

Facing serious criminal charges is a profoundly personal and stressful experience. We offer the opportunity to build a strong, trusting relationship with our attorneys. This connection results in a more open exchange of information, which is essential for constructing a robust defense. The trust between our clients and attorneys produces results in court, presenting a united and convincing front to judges and juries.

Conclusion

While larger firms may seem impressive with their scale and brand recognition, when it comes to criminal defense, the individualized attention and services offered at Stahl Gasiorowski offer distinct advantages. Personalized attention, specialized expertise, agility, cost-effectiveness, direct representation, and a strong attorney-client relationship are necessities in building a formidable defense.

Stahl Gasiorowski has specialized in representing individuals and corporations in federal and state criminal investigations and charges. Our partners each have more than 30 years’ experience zealously defending clients in matters involving health care fraud, crypto currency marketing and transactions, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, drug and gun conspiracies and tax fraud.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and offer big law skills at boutique firm prices. To contact us call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

Last fall Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the Department of Justice’s more aggressive approach to corporate compliance. In her policy speech this week, she highlighted a series of new policies and warned cooperating companies not to slow walk their disclosures, told prosecutors to speed up their investigations and expanded self-reporting programs throughout the Department.

Of note, Monaco acknowledged the past year’s decline in corporate prosecutions. In an effort to assist prosecutors’ timely investigations of individuals, Monaco said that any company that delays in turning over key documents and information to the government will risk losing some or all credit for cooperating. While companies are already required to turn over non-privileged information about employee wrongdoing in order to receive cooperation credit, Monaco said that the DOJ would view companies more favorably that claw back compensation from those employees. In her view, such a policy could deter wrongdoing — “compensation systems that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

Recidivist corporate offenders, even for unrelated prior misconduct, were warned that any prior violations would factor into DOJ’s treatment of new offenses. But, in an attempt to assuage corporate anxiety about prior misdeeds that resulted in either civil fines or criminal pleas, Monaco said that criminal resolutions more than 10 years old, and civil or regulatory settlements more than 5 years old, would be given less weight.

Lastly, Monaco said that every section of DOJ that prosecutes corporate crime will develop an individualized program to incentivize corporate self-disclosure. The common principles for these programs will include foregoing guilty pleas when the company self-reports, cooperates and remediates the misconduct. Further, monitorships, while back in favor and to be freely implemented when appropriate, will be circumscribed when the above requirements have been met. Prosecutors will be tasked, however, with making sure that the monitors are performing properly and stay on budget.

Federal investigations and prosecutions of corporations and individual employees and officers are complex and time consuming. There are a variety of factors that must be considered to properly defend the company and its employees while conducting an independent investigation of the alleged wrongdoing. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Typical scenario – early morning, FBI agents show up unannounced at your home or workplace wanting to speak with you. You are not under arrest, they are simply investigating something that you can help with. Maybe it’s about your employer, or friend, or something you were involved in with others. You are caught off-guard by the surprise visit, you may still be sleepy and you think that if you don’t cooperate with the agents they will think that you have something to hide. So you agree to speak with them for a “few minutes”, and those minutes turn into an hour or two. You recall one agent asking questions and the other taking notes. You don’t think that you gave a “formal statement”, nothing that could get you in trouble.

Unfortunately, you just gave a statement, most likely unrecorded, to a federal agent and if that statement contained material misrepresentations, you have potentially violated two federal criminal statutes – making false statements (lying) to federal agents and obstruction of justice.

In 2017, I wrote about former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and former Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos guilty pleas to making false statements to government agents. Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prohibits a person “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch” of the federal government from “knowingly and willfully”:

(1) falsifying, concealing or covering up “by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;”

(2) making any materially “false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;” or

(3) making or using “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry …”.

This statute applies when someone is interviewed by the FBI or other federal agencies, even without being advised of his rights or being placed under oath, as in a deposition or court proceeding. There is no pre-warning required or given. In fact, these situations usually occur under a “friendly- type” interview, or just a “few questions” to clear up an issuer or to help the agents understand a situation better.

Remember Martha Stewart? While investigating a potential insider trading scheme involving Stewart and her financial advisor, Stewart spoke with federal agents and it was later determined that she lied. While she escaped the stock fraud charges, she went to prison for making false statements during the investigation.

More recently, a Harvard University Chair of its Chemistry and Biology Departments, Charles Lieber, was convicted of two counts of making false statements to the FBI post-arrest and after being advised of his Miranda rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. The agents arrested him in connection to an alleged Chinese espionage plot concerning scientific intellectual property. In the course of his arrest, the false statements he made to the FBI were used at trial to both present evidence as to the false statements counts, but also to show his guilty knowledge of the underlying scheme.

In another case involving a professor, this time at Texas A & M University, charges were based on his alleged lies to NASA about his affiliation with a Chinese university. Professor Cheng’s case involves questions of law about a Congressional budget bill that restricts NASA’s two-way funding arrangements with the Chinese government and whether the professor was required to disclose his ties to the Chinese university. In denying a motion to dismiss, the court held that while it could not determine the whether there was a requirement to disclose until evidence was heard at trial, the criminal case would proceed based on the professor’s alleged lies to the federal government. In other words, whether NASA’s inquiries were legitimate or not, it was entitled to honest answers.

In both of these cases, very highly educated people went forward with interviews with federal agents without the advice and presence of experienced defense counsel and both ended up facing serious federal criminal charges. Before agreeing to speak to federal agents, these cases demonstrate that the individual should first consult with a highly experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney to make sure that their rights are protected.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have represented 100s of individuals in federal investigations and requests for interviews by federal agents. We aggressively protect our clients’ rights, and ensure that they do not unwittingly or purposely make statements that could later prove to be false or misleading. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Part of the justice in the criminal justice system is the existence of a mechanism to correct for critical mistakes made during the trial. That mechanism is the appeal process. This post provides a brief overview of how the criminal appeals process works.

To begin with, what the appeal process is not intended to do is re-litigate the trial. The appeals court will look at the facts, evidence and testimony that were presented at trial and which form the trial record on appeal. However, the court will not consider new evidence that was not presented at trial. Rather, what the appeal must do to be successful is to prove that during trial a reversible error took place.

The appeals court will not reverse a trial court decision even if the appeal of the conviction can prove that mistakes were made, as long as those mistakes were harmless error. However, if on appeal the person making the appeal, the appellant, can show that an error had the effect of prejudicing the outcome (that if the error had not happened, he or she would not have been convicted) – that is a reversible error.

If the appellant can show that a reversible error occurred, then the conviction may be overturned.

Another consideration on appeal is to challenge the sentence issued in connection with a conviction. Similar to its examination of the trial record, the appeals court will generally avoid overturning a trial court sentence unless the appellant can demonstrate that a significant mistake was made, such as the trial court judge making a mistake in applying a sentence mandated by law. If that happened, then instead of overturning the conviction itself the appeals court may send the matter back to the trial court for a new sentence.

Due to the high stakes and complexity of this process, working with an attorney in the pursuit of an appeal can be a wise decision.

Source:

The stages of a criminal case as it proceeds through the legal system can be confusing for individuals who find themselves on the wrong end of legal charges for the first time. Though popular media has no shortage of stories set within the criminal justice system, these fictional depictions often leave out important details. When a substantial portion of your personal and professional future hangs in the balance, it’s critical to have a complete and accurate understanding of the steps through which your criminal case will proceed.

Criminal Arrest

A criminal case begins with an investigation into alleged criminal conduct. The formal process begins when an individual accused of a crime is taken into custody by law enforcement. To make an arrest, the law enforcement officer must either be present at the time the crime is committed and see it happen, or have an arrest warrant for the suspect in question. Arrest warrants may be obtained by law enforcement when they can present probable cause that a given individual committed the crime. There are certain procedures, determined by the jurisdiction, that an arresting officer must follow for a legitimate arrest.

Criminal Charges

The accused has the right to be informed of the crime(s) for which they are being charged, either at the time of the arrest or as promptly thereafter as is practical.

Initial Appearance

This is usually the first occasion on which a given criminal case comes before a judge. Generally the initial appearance must occur within 24 hours of the arrest. During this appearance, the identity of the accused is confirmed, the criminal charges against them are explained, and the accused is informed of their rights (to remain silent, and to be represented by an attorney). Public defenders are assigned to defendants who cannot afford a lawyer.

Preliminary Hearing

An accused defendant has the right to be present and represented by an attorney at this hearing, the purpose of which is to present and challenge evidence that shows probable cause to believe that a criminal act was indeed committed, and that the defendant was the perpetrator. Evidence may be presented at this stage to support or dispute these claims. If the Judge determines that the State failed to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime, the charges are dismissed and the defendant released. The State can avoid a probable cause hearing by presenting the case to the grand jury and obtaining an indictment. The indictment is proof that the grand jury found sufficient probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime(s)charged.

Bail or Detention Hearing

If not already determined at the defendant’s initial appearance before the court, a separate hearing is convened to establish whether bail is appropriate, and if so, in what amount.

Grand Jury

Felony cases in some jurisdictions involve a grand jury indictment rather than a preliminary hearing. In these cases, a grand jury consisting of private citizens sworn to secrecy hears evidence only from the prosecutor, the defense is not permitted to participate. The grand jury in a criminal case has the power to compel testimony from concerned parties, including the victim. After investigating, the grand jury votes on whether to indict or dismiss.

Arraignment

At this stage of a criminal case, the defendant is formally presented with the charges against them contained in the indictment and enters a plea.

Pre-Trial Hearings

Before the trial begins, both the prosecution and the defense may introduce motions to address outstanding issues pertaining to the case, which are ruled upon by the judge.

Plea Negotiations

Instead of proceeding to trial, the defendant may choose plead guilty to the original charge or a lesser charge, in exchange for some form of consideration from the prosecution – often involving either dropping other charges or recommending a specific sentence. The court has the option to accept or reject the plea agreement; if it is rejected, the defendant may withdraw their plea.

Criminal Trial

If the case is not dismissed or resolved with a plea agreement, it goes to trial before a jury. This is perhaps the most well-recognized portion of a criminal case. Jurors are selected, evidence is presented, witnesses are questioned and cross-examined. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot, the defense attorney may ask for a judgment of acquittal.

Verdict

If the trial is completed without a judgment of acquittal, dismissal, or plea agreement, the jury withdraws to consider the facts and reach a verdict, which is then presented to the court. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the defendant is released. Otherwise, the case proceeds to sentencing.

Sentencing

The sentence received by the defendant is often determined at a separate hearing. Both the prosecution and the defense present evidence regarding the appropriate punishment, and the judge makes the final determination.

Appeals

You may appeal the ruling in your criminal case to a higher court if you believe an error or inappropriate action resulted in an unfair decision. Appeals are difficult to win, and your attorney can help you determine whether you have grounds for an appeal.

The experienced attorneys at Robert G. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908-301-9001 for our Mountainside, New Jersey office and 212-755-3300 for our New York City office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.