Recent calls show more reasons to get an attorney

I had two calls this week that illustrate the difference between getting an attorney for a permit application and not getting one. 

One new client called me because he was denied a purchase permit.  He did not have an attorney during the process.  He was denied because there was a warrant for his arrest out of California.  The problem is, there does not seem to really be any arrest warrant as every court he calls tells him that there is nothing in their system.  Nevertheless, he would have to pay me a lot more money to clear this up.

Contrast that to a client that did hire me.  A Sgt from the State Police called me and advised me that my client failed to disclose an arrest and that he was not happy.  The Sgt said that he could file criminal charges against my client for lying on the application but that he wouldn’t.  In fact, he is going to put the application on hold while we gather the missing information.  My client can then amend the application to include this new information. 

If avoiding thousands of dollars of legal fees and possible criminal charges doesn’t provide you with incentive to hire an attorney for the permit application, I don’t know what will.

Posted on February 19, 2009, in My Practice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Regarding the second case above, there is no duty to disclose any arrests on the STS-033, only convictions that have not been expunged or sealed.

    Was it a nondisclosure of an arrest or conviction?

    PS- nice site you have.

%d bloggers like this: