187 Client Reviews
Showing 71 - 75 of 83 reviews | Practice Area Knowledge
Posted by dcmartin10 | October 09, 2012
Outstanding legal service, advice and outcome of case
I recently recieved my second D.U.I. After many hours of stressful research and going through the many attorney letters I recieved in the mail I decided Mark Blairs Law Office was the correct route for me. From my first call to his office I realized this was deffinately the way to go. He is extremely...
Posted by anonymous | October 05, 2012
Excellent attorney with excellent customer service.
Our 18 year old son was faced with a DUI charge. As a family we were out of our comfort zone in this type of situation. Mark's expertise, professionalism and great communication helped us tremendously through this difficult time. We really appreciate how he made our son feel comfortable and prepared...
Posted by Dominic | September 12, 2012
What an honest, understanding, knowledgable Lawyer! If you're in trouble hire Mark!
Mark was EXCELLENT in his approach to my delicate and very serious matter of my 2nd DUI. He was succesful in my aquittal to the DUI and was succesful at making sure I promptly was re-issued my Driver's License. He is nice, easy to work with, always reachable, hard working, very helpful lawyer. I woul...
Posted by Jacob | September 05, 2012
OK
Overall my experience was ok, it was my 2nd DUI within 1 year (stupid I know, first was wet wreckless) When you call you will talk to David his assistant. David is very nice, pretty knowledgeable, and will give you "hope". He went over process and what they like to do and a lot of your options before...
For me to respond, I cannot mention my client’s name or use any identifying information. I have to refer to my client in a non gender specific way to preserve his/her privacy. My client had a prior wet reckless. My client was convicted not in 2011 as my client wrote, BUT in 2012, on January 4, 2012. Please note that my client’s new 2012 DUI for which my client hired me DUI occurred only SIX months after the first conviction, on June 12, 2012. My client in my client’s new 2012 arrest had roadside tests of .16/.15 and a blood test of .17 just 35 minutes after the breath tests. Before we went to court, I learned that my client was on probation for a “wet reckless”. I researched my client’s wet reckless case and read the conditions of probation. In January 2012, the judge ordered my client in my client’s wet reckless case NOT to drive a vehicle with any measurable amount of alcohol. In January 2012, the judge ordered my client NOT to violate the law. Unfortunately, when my client was arrested in Jun 2012 for my client’s new DUI, my client’s drinking and driving (.15/16 and .17 blood test) violated my client’ probation in my client’s wet reckless case. I am very familiar with the jurisdiction where my client in on probation for a “wet reckless”. In that jurisdiction, judges routinely put persons in actual jail when they (1) drink and drive (2) get arrested for a new DUI offense within six months of their first conviction. Judges in that jurisdiction put persons in jail for up to 60 days for such a violation. My client was well aware of this potential jail issue. Before we appeared at arraignment (first court appearance), we discussed the problems with being on probation. I had my client appear in court at the arraignment (first appearance) because we wanted to see if we could as early as possible in the case, avoid any actual jail time and avoid the district attorney in the new DUI case from contacting the district attorney’s office in my client’s wet reckless case to violate my client’s wet reckless probation. We were both concerned that a prosecutor could simply pick up the telephone, call the other jurisdiction, and have my client violated on my client’s probation. So we went to court with the idea of trying to obtain the best offer and then weigh accepting the offer vs the risks of setting the case for a motion to suppress the evidence. A person on probation has the following risks when arrested for a new offense in such little time after being placed on probation. First, when a person is violated on probation, the judge can remand (put in jail) immediately the person. Moreover, a person remanded into jail on a probation violation does NOT have a right to bail. That means, the judge can simply leave the person in jail until the probation violation is resolved. As previously indicated, the jurisdiction where my client was on probation, sentences persons to 60 days or more of jail for such violations. My client was aware of all the above. We were also concerned that the prosecutor for the new (second offense DUI) arrest would want actual jail as well. When a person is on probation for such a small amount of time and is arrested again for a new DUI, especially one in which the person is over two times the legal limit, the person can face 30 to 60 days or more of real jail on the second offense. So, I had my client appear, because as my client and I had discussed, if we could (1) avoid jail, (2) avoid the prosecutor contacting the other jurisdiction about the probation violation) and (3) minimize my client’s second offense sentence, my client would be quite fortunate. We would weigh all the above against litigating the motion. My client absolutely agreed. My client was concerned that my client may have a motion to suppress the evidence, because my client believed that the officer did not have a valid reason to pull my client over. My client had a passenger in my client’s vehicle who my client thought could support this position. I explained that we could go to court, see what we could nego
Posted by anonymous | March 14, 2012
From DUI to Wet-and-Reckless thanks to Mark!
Despite a pretty high BAC of mine, Mark was able to reduce the DUI charge to Wet-and-Reckless! He has been extremely helpful from the beginning of the hell and very clearly responded to all of my request in a timely manner. He knew what he needed from me to gain what we wanted and clearly notifie...