Dave Albo Charges $4,500 Per DWI

When will that make it into a story?

Comments

[Doug]

Huh? What are you talking about?

[Not Jack Herrity]

Doesn't this cut against your argument that the legislation will benefit his practice? The abusive driver fee for DWI is $2250, and Albo charges $4500 to get a driver out of paying that fee. Since the abusive driver fee is about half Albo's retainer, why not just pay the tax and end the game there?

The reason people hire lawyers for DUI is because they don't want a criminal conviction on their record and they don't want to go to jail. The money they will pay for an abusive driver fee is not what they are worried about. The criminal conviction and their fear of dropping the soap in the shower is what they are worried about.

NJH

[novamiddleman]

Also note this is for DWI which is even more serious than a DUI

Lawyers can go into the details but there is a huge difference

[Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr.]

So for $4500 do you think Del. Albo will zealously and aggressively advocate that his legislation is unconstitutional?

[Not Larry Sabato]

NJH, I was wondering where a weird number like $2,250 came from, but you just made me realize it.

Are all the Abuser Fees 1/2 of Albo's rate?

[Doug Mataconis]

What's the big deal ?

A DUI/DWI is a serious offense even without taking into account the abuser fees.

1. It's a Class 1 Misdomeanor, which means there's a potential for up to a year in jail.

2. For some DUI offenses (where the BAC level is above a certain point or when you've been convicted of the charge more than one within a certain period of time), there is mandatory jail time.

3. Mandatory loss of driving privilege for one year.

4. Increased Insurance rates.

Given all of this, and taking into account the work, skill, and experience it takes to represent people in cases like this, charging $ 4,500 to defend someone on a DUI is not unreasonable.

I'm not a fan of the abuser fees, but I don't think it matters how much Albo, or anyone else, charges.

Does anyone know whether or not the fee for getting caught by the red light cameras (coming back July 1st) has increased also? They used to be like $25 or something, right?

[Not Jack Herrity]

NHFB: No more than Brian Moran would argue that any of his own bills are unconstitutional. Everyone here talks about Albo and traffic fines, but no one talks about Moran and all of his bills that benefit lawyers.

NLS: I don't know what Albo's fees are. You'd have to ask him.

NJH

[Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr.]

Show me a bill that Brian Moran introduced that drove more clients to his law practice with bigger problems. Here's what he sponsored last session:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+mbr+H106C

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+mbr+H106S

I don't see any changes to criminal law - unless you're talking about his bill making it a crime to leave unattended kids locked in cars (which was Albo's bill actually).

Remember that Albo led the charge against DWI's 3 years ago that made Virginia's DWI laws the harshest in the country. I bet he wasn't charging $4500/case before that.

$4500/case is a lot of money.

Not Jack and Not Harry got me thinking about something...

Technically, Albo charges $4500 as his fee - which doesn't automatically mean the accused avoids the $2250 fee. They're not paying a legal fee to "get out of" paying the civil fee, they are merely hiring a lawyer in hopes of not paying a civil fee.

So if Albo loses the case, Albo the Lawyer profits from his service fee and Albo the Legislator (i.e. Virginia) profits from the civil fee. Win-win, right? Not exactly, a lose is bad for Albo the Lawyer because he'll get less business being a losing lawyer. But if Albo the Lawyer wins then Albo the Legislator loses, which is bad for Virginia but good for business. Makes the head spin thinking about the predicament our Lawyer/Legislator friend has crafted for himself.

Seriously, does anyone know Albo's track record on these cases? Or, an even more interesting angle (as per Not Harry's comment), what arguments is Albo using in court to defend his clients? That might make for an enlightening comparison - his court arguments vs his legislative arguments.

[James Young]

Might wanna rethink this one, Ben. I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. A lawyer charging a fee?

[Not Jack Herrity]

NHFB: Brian's firm doesn't just do criminal work. They are a general practice firm that specializes in domestic relations, contracts, wills, etc. They even dabble in traffic court. Go back and look at some of his legislation on those issues. Go back a couple years, too.

NJH

[Albo Must Go]

The problem is this James:

http://albomustgo.blogspot.com/2007/04/cash-booze-and-albo-cycle.html
http://albomustgo.blogspot.com/2007/03/albo-oblon-pllc-abuser-fee-plan-part-ii.html
http://albomustgo.blogspot.com/2006/04/albo-oblon-llc-abuser-fees-plan.html

We've been talking about this for over a year on Albo Must Go.

[Chris]

NJH,

You make a heroic effort to defend Albo with your point about Albo's fees for DWI being much higher than the abuser free. Great try. However, you are missing the point. Actually two points.

First, you are right. The reason someone pays that much is to prevent the ramifications of a criminal conviction. RAMIFICATIONS THAT DAVE ALBO CRAFTED IN EARLIER LEGISLATION.

Second, back to the abuser fees. DWI is not a good example. People WILL now pay much smaller fees to Albo's firm for much more minor offenses to avoid smaller (but still signifcant) abuser fees. More clients = more money even if the fees per case do not average $4,500.

[Chris]

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, Dave Albo is corrupt.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Look, guys. I'm not Albo's chief defender. He can take care of himself. But I call it like I see it, and I don't see Albo doing anything differently from any other lawyer down there. Creigh Deeds tried to change an entire ethics law just to suit his own situation. If that means they are all corrupt, so be it.

Chris, I know a little about how much it takes to get a lawyer to defend a traffic case. The average lawyer's fee for defending misdemeanor and felony criminal infractions is higher than the abuser fees will be for a reckless conviction. That is why few people will hire an attorney solely because of the fees.

Use reckless driving as an example. The average retainer for reckless is in the neighborhood of $1500. Some are higher, some are lower. If someone tells you the abuser fee is $1050, will that statement alone cause you to hire a lawyer at a price of $1500 to POSSIBLY avoid the abuser fee? No way. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not worth it.

Now look at it the other way. If someone tells you you might get a up to a $2500 fine, a year in jail, a criminal record, and a suspension of your license, THAT will make you hire a lawyer. Because the average person will do anything to avoid having a criminal record.

Most people hire lawyers for these crimes already because they are just that - crimes. Adding another fee does not create a massive tipping point. Adding another year in jail probably would.

NJH

That sounds like a pretty good deal for that part of the state. I would have thought it would have been more than that.

[Sam]

I have to agree with NJH here... I would love to see Albo go down myself, but this abuser fee issue is such a non-starter it isn't even funny... It is NOT for speeding, NO cop charges reckless for under 20 over (and even those who do in the few instances where they even can are typically thrown out by the judge), and more than 20 over is NEVER necessary. I've lived and driven in Northern Virginia for 6 years, and have driven on most every highway in the state and have not once ever found a necessity of going more than 20 over...

Plus, as NJH pointed out, the fees are lower than lawyer fees, so the higher abuser fees really won't get Albo more business, and the DWI and other criminal stuff where people want to avoid the criminal conviction, these were crimes BEFORE the abuser fees and the abuser fees don't change anything there, so I really don't get the argument.

I will root for any Democrat challenging Albo, but not for this stupid reason.

[Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr.]

1 - Abuser fees now apparently apply if you get more than 8 points on your records (some $ per point or something). That will drive more people to get attorneys (for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to call attorney's Albos) for the stupidest little violations around - e.g. turn signals, stop signs, etc. where before you'd never get an Albo. Points on your record now have more meaning.

2 - My lawyer friends tell me that not everyone gets an Albo on reckless drivings, now they will if there are $1,000 of fees.

3 - I bet Del. Albo's fee is on the high end - with so much more in fines at risk, it more justifiable to pay big money to Albo or other Albos on these charges.

4 - Why does every solution Del. Albo propose to some problem involve him making more money? He introduced another bill this year giving a cause of action to a fired employee if their employer employed an undocumented worker (aka illegal immigrant).

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+ful+HB2687H1

Albo's firm also does employment law.

Why do many of Del. Albo's legislative solutions to our problems seem to put more money in his pocket?

[Sam]

I still don't see how Albo makes more money... his fee are still higher than the abuser fees... people are no more likely to pay $1500 to get rid of a $1000 fine than they were to get rid of a $250 fine

Do you know how hard it is to get 8 points on your license? Reckless Driving isn't even 8 points (I believe it's 6).... If you've got 8 points, again, you probably deserve the fines.

[Isophorone]

So what do other lawyers charge to defend DWI? Have you done a suyrvey? Do other legislators who happen to be lawyers charge a higher than average feecompared with other local lawyers? Do they deserve it?

Sounds like "lawmaking is wasted on lawyers," right?

Let's remember this when you defend all kinds of left-wing legislation (e.g., food nanny, global warming) that drives business to Democrat-supporting trial lawyers. I'm waiting. And waiting. And waiting . . .

[GinterParked]

Sam: Here's exactly how hard it is to get 8 points on your record:

Get convicted of speeding 55 in a 45 zone on January 1. Get convicted of speeding 55 in a 45 zone on December 31.

[Sam]

GinterParked - And how many places do you get pulled over for just doing 10 over? And then what's the likelihood an intelligent, responsible driver happens to get pulled over twice in less than a year in those spots for doing just 10 over? I'm not buying it.

Isophorone - There are plenty of Republican trial lawyers who benefit from all of those things too... it's called working for their clients. I don't buy into any argument of "this is a bad law because it gives lawyers more business" no matter what party it's from (I would note as I defend this bill, I am an active and staunch Democrat)

[Not Jack Herrity]

Ginter: Your hypothetical assumes a newly licensed driver. You get a +1 on your license for every year you don't get a ticket for a maximum of +5. You can also get 5 positive points by taking a driver safety course.

In addition to all that, demerit points only stay on your license for two years after the offense, so even if you've had a couple tickets the points tend to drop pretty quickly.

I'm willing to bet there aren't many people driving around with a -8 on their license. Not many who can get insurance, anyway.

NJH

[Sam]

NJH - and considering a newly licensed driver, unless they're over 20, has to take a driver safety course anyways after that first offense, that makes it even harder.

[GinterParked]

Sam: Don't get me wrong. I'm not bitching because this gives lawyers more money. I'm a traffic lawyer, and it was sweet to learn what Dave charges. I'm thinking travertine in the new bathroom instead of ceramic.

No, I'm bitching because this is lousy public policy, and it's especially lousy when the chief proponent has an obvious conflict of interest. I'm a big fan of the citizen legislator model, but I've gotta say that this is not an example I'd use to advance that concept.

[Sam]

I don't see why this is bad public policy, with the sole exception of the exception for non-Virginians which, I will grant, is dumb. I know I, for one, will be a little more careful when I drive knowing these fines are out there (and I'm sure I'm not alone), so that's good for everyone, AND it helps us raise some money for this transportation plan so we don't have to keep raiding the general fund, which is also good.

I also don't believe there's a conflict of interest for Albo unless he starts making the fines higher or his fees lower so that his fees are lower than the fines. Now, is there an APPEARANCE of inpropriety? Certainly, and there's value to preventing that. I don't think this was necessarily smart of Albo to do, but I don't think it was wrong or corrupt. However, I would note, if non-Virginians were included, they would have to fight the tickets in Virginia court, so would have to hire Virginia lawyers (potentially Albo) so the non-Virginia exemption actually seems to go against the idea of this trying to get money for Albo.

However, outside the non-Virginia exemption, I really don't see why this is bad public policy, unless there's something I'm just completely missing.

[GinterParked]

NJH: Most Virginians don't bother to parse DMV laws and regulations. Let me help.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/points_4.asp

This instructive page will tell you how long negative points will remain on your record, based on the underlying offense.

You're right, each driver gets one positive point for each year without a violation. But the negative points remain for the periods set out above.

Once every two years - but no more frequently - a driver can take a class and get 5 positive points. You can never have more than five positive points, although you can have an unlimited number of negative points.

And you - or Sam- are right. 10 miles over is an uncommon conviction. It's a lot more common to get nailed for 69 on the beltway. Twice in one year.

For those who are trying to make an economic argument that is cheaper to pay the abuser fee than it is to pay the lawyer, you are missing out on one big factor: The increased cost of your auto insurance premiums. You insurer is going to jack your rate sky-high if you get enough points to qualify for the abuser fees, almost certainly putting you in a high-risk pool requiring an SR-22 endorsement. And THAT will make abuser fee look almost tiny...

[Sam]

However, the 8 points in the law is 8 total points, that combines positive and negative. Besides the fact that I regularly go 70 on the Beltway and have yet to be pulled over on it (and I know I'm not alone there), if you take that driver class after your first offense, it completely wipes out the negative points from your first offense.

At the risk of embarassment, I'll use my own driving record as an example. Until last year, I'd never had a ticket. I had +5. Then, last December, I got pulled over for 68 in a 55 (no excuse, just me being stupid). That knocked me up to +1 points. I then took a driver safety course, which brought me back to +5. Then, last June I was pulled over for 63 in a 45 (again... no excuse except my own idiocy), this is a 6 point offense, bringing me to -1. It's now been over a year since my last ticket, so I've received the good driver bonus and am at 0 (I've checked with the DMV on all of this regularly). So, it less than a year, I managed to be convicted of speeding 13 over and 18 over, and still didn't come anywhere close to 8 points. Now, if I'm an idiot and do that again in the next year, I'll be at 8, but frankly, at this point, if I'm really that dumb, I deserve the fines....

But don't worry, I drive MUCH more safely in Northern Virginia... for some reason Route 29 near to Charlottesville (where both these tickets were from) just brings out the worst in me driving-wise... :-)

[Sam]

Anon 5:27 - This law didn't change the point system. Your insurance would go up that much for those kinds of points regardless of this law.

[Sam]

And please don't laugh at my speeding tickets... I really do drive better now... I promise

Sam: I always hear excuses... that why people come to lawyers. Your 63 in a 45 should have been only 4 points if there was nothing other than speed involved.

The plus 5s like you are the folks that this bill's supporters will point to. I'm one myself. I will say though that I rarely get a plus 5 in my office. And I wonder how many plus 5s will blithely pay a ticket without concern for what might happen if they get another.

The other thing to consider is this: DMV positive points only acrue on licensure - your previous out-of-state record is irrelevant. Should a Maryland resident, moving to take a job in Woodbridge, make it a point to take a Virginia driver improvement class so that he doesn't risk these fees?

Why is there no Democrat candidate running against Albo?

Albo is lucky he has no opponent. On the Senate side it's Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis who is reponsible for this. She is taking for getting the bill passed. She has said numerous times that this never would have happened without her.

Well, I hope one of them pays the price and since Albo does not have an opponent...

[Not Jack Herrity]

NHFB: you might want to read the right document:

"DMV demerit points remain on your record for two years from the date that you commit the offense. The dates that demerit points are removed from your driving record are not related to the dates that convictions are removed from your record."

So the conviction itself and the demerit points run on separate tracks. Even though your record will still show some convictions, it won't necessarily be reflected in your point totals.

The rest of your post appears to be accurate.

NJH

[Not Jack Herrity]

Sorry, I meant to direct that to Ginter. I keep getting you guys confused. :)

[Not Frank Hargrove]

I say, Go Ginter Parked!

[Lars]

Blah..Blah..Blah.. Dave Albo is a good guy. He KNOWS what we all deal with on a daily basis.

[Interested Observer]

Recently on WTOP Governor Kaine placed the blame for the new driver abuser fees on Delegates Albo and Rust. However, these abuser fees were promoted greatly by the Governor from the beginning of the Transportation Package negotiations. I just wanted to set the record straight on who was a vocal supporter of these abuser fees.

From his Aug 28, 2006 Money Committee Address:
Both Houses agree on abuser fees. The dangerous behavior of unsafe drivers threatens the safety of other drivers and causes accidents that create congestion. Those drivers should be financially accountable for their actions.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/Speeches/2006/JMC-Aug2006.cfm#9

From his Jan 10, 2007 State of the Commonwealth address:
Both houses agree that abusive drivers should pay stiffer fines to be used for transportation needs. To solve our funding dilemma, I have proposed a basic transportation financing package. Three elements of the package—proper use of existing auto insurance premium taxes, charges to abusive drivers and a commitment to using surplus dollars for transportation—require no new revenues from law-abiding citizens.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/Speeches/2007/SOTC.cfm#3

From his first transportation plan, six days into office 2006:
This plan includes enhanced fees for abusive drivers .
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=57

From his transportation plan announced Jan 2007:
Imposes an abuser fee on motorists who drive under the influence, drive recklessly, or commit certain other offenses.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=319

2006 Legislation introduced at the request of the Governor including SB 722 DMV; assessment of fees on certain drivers, use of fees collected.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+sum+SB722

So as you can see, Kaine hasn’t been honest with us when he says he knows little about this.

[Registered Voter]

Repeal the VA "Civil Remedial Fees" for Traffic Offenses

http://www.petitiononline.com/va3202/petition.html

[DWI Lawyer Washington County MN]

First and foremost, please do not drink and drive. It is a dangerous choice to make not only for you, but the other drivers on the road as your judgment and reaction times are commonly slowed or impaired, making you a more dangerous driver. Also, if in Minnesota, your chances of getting caught doing so are fairly high. If caught and charged with either a DUI or DWI, you can face many severe penalties including losing your vehicle, your license, or even your freedom by being put in jail for years. The Minnesota law is not lenient at all on drunk driving because of the many publicized cases we have had over the years.