Did you know that the Court and/or police officer do not have to tell you if you might suffer a suspension of your driver’s license for pleading guilty to a traffic ticket. In fact, they may not even know that the offense carries a suspension. Even if that is the case, PennDOT will not care that you didn’t know your license was goint to be suspended and will notify you via mail after the conviction is final. If you act quickly you may be able to appeal, though that is not always the case. None of this is necessary, as a simple call to a lawyer in advance will let you know whether the offense carries a suspension. Better yet, we don’t charge for a consultation so you don’t pay to find out. If there’s no suspension then it may not be worthwhile to hire a lawyer, but if there is at least you will know about it.

A Centre County court recently ordered local newspapers to expunge the records or arrests in five different cases, setting off a backlash of First Amendment rights stories in the media. The Philadelphia Inquirer and others reported the story, but it is noteworthy that as of yet it appears that none of the defendants have been mentioned by name. If that remains to be the case then this may open a new wave of Pennsylvania expungement activity in the future. The competing concern is that with all of the related press it is certainly possible that for now, it may be more prudent to wait it out. Requesting expungement only to have your name appear in articles across the country probably counteracts the intended result. More importantly, we have had great success in getting news agencies and other reporting companies to expunge their records by sending them copies of the Court’s expungement Order accompanied by polite, repeated requests to expunge their records.   Call us at 215-997-1000 or email steve@fairlielaw.net for more information about expungements.

Check out our new content pertaining to sex crimes at http://fairlielaw.net/practice-areas/sex-crimes/

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has decided MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS in an opinion handed down on June 28, 2010. Chicago’s firearms laws provide that “no person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm” which effectively banned handgun possession by almost all private citizens who reside in the City.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and it struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The theory was that citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense. In McDonald the Court held that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States and that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States under the Due Process Clause. Therefore, the city of Chicago’s handgun ban violated the Constitution and was invalidated.

It is with great pleasure that we announce Fairlie & Lippy, P.C. is expanding.  Stephen M. Geday, Esquire, has just joined our firm as a new associate. 

Stephen M. Geday is an experienced trial attorney, having argued cases in front of both judges and juries.  He is a former Assistant District Attorney, having worked in the Sex Crimes Unit of the Trials Division in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and has handled over 700 misdemeanor and felony cases, including:   homicide, drug offenses, sex offenses, assaults, economic crimes, retail theft, and DUI.  Steve also worked in the United States Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Missouri, the Public Defender’s Office in St. Louis, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington D.C., where he advised the National Security Legal Branch and the Directorate of Intelligence on information sharing in the post 9-11 counterterrorism age. 

Mr. Geday graduated from Duke University with a B.S. in Psychology, and from Washington University School of Law, where he was President of the Trial Law Society, Recipient of the William M. Pomerantz Trial Award, and selected for the school’s nationally-renowned Trial Team.  He also attended the Inns of Court School of Law in London, England, which for centuries has the time-honored distinction of being the training ground for British barristers (trial attorneys).  Born and raised locally as a first generation American of Hungarian background, he attended Devon Preparatory School on an academic scholarship. 

Time permitting, Mr. Geday enjoys sharing his knowledge of the legal process with academia, and has done so at Gwynedd Mercy College and Ursinus College.  His personal pursuits include traveling and outdoor sports.  An avid martial artist since childhood, he has won numerous regional and national titles, and has competed on the international level many times.  Having lived in several continents and traveled to dozens of countries, he is conversationally fluent in Hungarian and proficient in German. 

Mr. Geday is prepared to zealously fight in courtroom to the ultimate degree, but has the skill to negotiate the best outcome for a case when appropriate.  He is passionate about advocating for justice, and prides himself on investing his full energy into each of his clients. 

Steve will be a great fit with Fairlie & Lippy, P.C. and we’re excited to have him on board!

NORTH WALES, PA, June 10, 2010- A Seminar entitled “Ten Motions You May Not Have Filed” was taught by Steven F. Fairlie, Esquire and Elizabeth L. Lippy, Esquire, of the North Wales firm Fairlie & Lippy, P.C., at the 27th Annual Criminal Law Symposium held at the Hilton Hotel in Harrisburg, PA June 3-4, 2010.

The seminar addressed criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors from across the state and advised them on ten motions that are not commonly used or widely known. It was designed to help attorneys think outside of the box and utilize motions that could significantly help their client’s case.

The Criminal Law Symposium is sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and is an annual gathering of attorneys from across Pennsylvania. The Symposium offers various seminars to allow attorneys to share techniques and experiences amongst colleagues.

Steven Fairlie obtained his law degree in 1995 from the Dickinson School of Law. He is a former Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney, Chair of the Montgomery County Criminal Defense Committee, a “SuperLawyer” as published in Philadelphia Magazine, and a holder of Martindale Hubbell’s prestigious AV rating. He currently is the Managing Partner of Fairlie & Lippy, P.C. in North Wales, PA.

Elizabeth L. Lippy is a graduate of Temple University’s Beasley School of Law. She is a member of the Criminal Defense Committee and has recently been named a Rising Star by Philadelphia Magazine for the third consecutive year. She is currently a Partner at Fairlie & Lippy, P.C. where they practice Criminal Defense and Civil Litigation.

For Additional information please contact Jenelle Moyer at 215-997-1000 or visit www.fairlielaw.net.

In Commonwealth v. Abraham, decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on June 08, 2010, the Court ruled that a criminal defense lawyer must advise his client if a guilty plea will result in forfeiture of the teacher’s pension. In Abraham, the defense attorney did not advise his client that pleading guilty would result in a forfeiture of the client’s pension. After entry of the guilty plea the client’s pension fund was forfeited and the client filed a Post-conviction Relief Act petition, or PCRA, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court had ruled that the lawyer was not ineffective, but the Superior Court reversed, in a holding similar to that of the recent United States Supreme Court holding in Padilla, posted here earlier, that a criminal defense lawyer must advise his client of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to any crime that could result in deportation.

Liz has been named a Rising Star by Philadelphia Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine for the third consecutive year. Check out the details at http://www.superlawyers.com/pennsylvania/lawyer/Elizabeth-L-Lippy/30699287-e851-4818-9802-b26bd54a76d1.html

Congratulations to Steven Fairlie for being named a 2010 Super Lawyer.  The award is only presented to less than 5% of attorneys state wide.  Quite a prestigious award and honor. 

http://www.superlawyers.com/pennsylvania/lawyer/Steven-F-Fairlie/efcb7100-18c2-43ea-ba39-8f9abb617013.html

A new United States Supreme Court holding dealing with Miranda has just come down: BERGHUIS, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. THOMPKINS, No. 08–1470. The Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit despite a strong dissent. The Sixth Circuit had ruled that a statement made by a man accused of First Degree Murder was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Police officers Mirandized and then interrogated the man for several hours about a fatal shooting. The man did not invoke his Miranda rights nor did he waive them. He just said nothing in response to police questioning. Near the end of the questioning he answered “yes” when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. The Court held that silence during interrogation does not invoke the right to remain silent as the right to silence or counsel must be invoked “unambiguously”. Essentially, the lesson of this case is that an explicit (traditionally written) waiver of Miranda rights is no longer needed under federal Miranda precedent and merely failing to affirmatively invoke your rights will constitute a waiver of those rights. Thus, someone who does not wish to speak with police about an issue must tell them that out loud. Perhaps more effective is to request a lawyer, which prohibits the police from coming back to question the person again at a later time until the lawyer is obtained.
It is likely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will adopt this interpretation in Pennsylvania cases when interpreting Article I § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, so that there will be no greater protections in Pennsylvania than under federal law. The impact on our cases in Montgomery County and Bucks County will be the same as that under federal Miranda law.