Menu
attorney awards

Legal Jobs

Note: If you are interested in an internship instead of full-time employment, visit our legal internships page.

Legal Administrative Position

Price Benowitz LLP is currently offering multiple legal administrative openings for the 2016 semester and beyond. The Legal Administrative job is perfect for college and law students looking to expand their knowledge of the legal field while simultaneously developing their administrative skill sets. Administrative employees will have the opportunity to gain valuable hands-on experience on everything from providing general administrative support to shadowing attorneys in court.

Candidates accepted for this position will be able to experience working at a dynamic, growing law firm where the attorneys are truly passionate about the law and are committed to providing exceptional client support. Given the responsibilities that come with this position, interested candidates must be organized, have strong communication skills and attention to detail, and thrive in a fast-paced working environment where multi-tasking is often required.

Our office is very metro accessible, located only a few blocks from the Gallery Place Metro in the Penn Quarter, and we are seeking to fill these positions as soon as possible. Individuals interested in applying should send their cover letter and resume to careers@pricebenowitz.com, using the subject line “Legal Admin Position.” Please, no calls.

Full-Time Client Intake Position

Price Benowitz LLP is currently seeking applicants for a Full-Time Client Intake position. Candidates who are interested in the legal field and have experience working in customer service or call centers are strongly encouraged to apply for this excellent opportunity.

Since the Full-Time Client Intake position involves extensive teamwork, candidates must be self-starters with strong communication skills. Also, as a growing law firm with a dynamic and fast-paced working environment, it is important to us that candidates who wish to become a member of our team have the ability to multi-task effectively. To be considered, candidates must have a Bachelor’s Degree. Bilingual candidates are STRONGLY encouraged to apply.

Headquartered in Penn Quarter, right in the heart of Washington, DC, Price Benowitz LLP also has offices throughout Maryland and Virginia. Our DC office is easily metro accessible, located only a few blocks from the Gallery Place Metro.

Those interested in this position should send their cover letter and resume to careers@pricebenowitz.com, using the subject line “Entry Level Intake Position”. Please, no calls.

Private Legal Investigator

Price Benowitz LLP is a respected law firm headquartered in Washington, DC with satellite offices in Maryland and Virginia. We are currently looking to add a full-time private investigator with previous experience to our criminal practice team.

Responsibilities for this position include searching records, tracking down and conducting interviews with witnesses, and creating detailed reports. Candidates interested in the position must have excellent investigative and interpersonal skills, be strong communicators, and be able and willing to travel. As a result, reliable private transportation is required for those seeking to fill this position.

Due to the time-sensitive nature of legal investigative work, the ideal candidate must be willing and able to accommodate a changing schedule. Additionally, if hired, the candidate will be expected to work weekends and nights if necessary. Bilingual candidates and individuals who have experience serving legal documents like subpoenas are strongly encouraged to apply.

Interested candidates should send their cover letter and resume to careers@pricebenowitz.com. The subject line for the email should read “Private Investigator.” Please, no calls.

Throwback Thursday Edition: This is a blog post that was originally written and posted on October 14, 2010

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and founding partner

Unless you are passionate, and sometimes compulsive, about criminal defense work, you can’t be successful at it. I equate it to my feelings about fantasy football. I love football. I’ve been a Giants fan since I was three years old. I don’t think I’ve missed watching a game since 1984, including when I was in Australia during their fabulous Super Bowl run in 2007. Loving football is about passion, and you must have passion to be a criminal defense attorney.

So how does loving fantasy football equate to criminal defense work? Fantasy football is about the love of the game, but it is also about being a bit compulsive. I say that as I sit screaming at my 52″ screen for Austin Collie, who I started over Steve Smith, to please score the next touchdown in a meaningless Week 3 Colts/Broncos late game. Unless you’re waking up at 3:00 am to write down the idea you had about your possession of marijuana case, unless your idea of a fun Saturday night is to see clients at the jail, unless you bring new Court of Appeals opinions to read at the beach on vacation, you need more passion. Go Big Blue!

Throwback Thursday Edition: This is a blog that was originally written and posted in 2011.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and founding partner

I’ve often felt like my destiny was to work as a public defender. From the day I walked into the basement at 451 Indiana Avenue, I felt like I was supposed to be there. However, my path to a job as a PDS attorney was not an easy one. Most of their attorneys had gone to Harvard or Yale and several had clerked for Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, I was all set to attend law school at American University. In fact, the one PDS lawyer I knew who’d gone to A.U. came up to me at my law school orientation and told me to try to get into a better school.

Journey of a Criminal Defense Lawyer in DC

As fate would have it, my friend and current law partner, who I’d known since the first day of college, had gotten into GW Law School from its waiting list. He figured that I should come too, so he simply asked GW’s admissions people to admit me as well. I’d almost not even made their waitlist because my father had thrown out the form I needed to fill out to accept the spot on it; I accepted a spot on the list on the very last day it was open. Anyway, they looked at their list, and once my friend said that I was already in town and would definitely come, they OK’d my admission.

I had a tremendous chip on my shoulder because I’d always thought of myself as the student that any school would want. Basically, my friend had arranged to have me shoved into the back of a large section of one of the largest law school classes in the country. I’m sure they were simply looking for the extra tuition. My pride almost didn’t allow me to accept, but in the back of my mind I knew this at least marginally improved my chances of getting a job at PDS.

I walked home from school every night that first year chanting to myself that I would work harder and be better than everyone who’d gotten into school the regular way. I literally killed myself working and ended up finishing in the top 10 percent of the class and made Law Review.

During my last year of school, I participated in the DC Law Students in Court Program, where we, with supervision, represented people accused of misdemeanors in DC Superior Court. I took all of my classes at night so I could devote as much time as possible to working in the clinic. We were only supposed to take three cases per semester, but I took 12 – 15, because I wanted to see if I had what it took to do this as a career.

Towards the end of the year, I applied to PDS. I was again put on a waitlist. Months passed and no decision was made. It’s funny though, once I made the waitlist at PDS, I figured that I was sort of destined to slide my way onto the path I wanted, kind of like the 6th round draft pick who ends up making the team.

In the summer of 1995, I attended the funeral of a relative (a law professor and renowned criminal defense attorney) of my friend and mentor at PDS. As I was paying my respects at the open casket, the PDS deputy director came up to me. As we leaned over the open casket, she asked me if I was still interested in the job since there was one remaining opening and it looked like the waitlist had been whittled down to me and one other person. I tried to get every connection I had at PDS to lobby for me.

I was in Austin, Texas doing working as a defense investigator on death penalty cases at the Texas Resource Center when I got the call that changed my life. I still have the offer letter on my desk.

This blog post is written by David Benowitz, founding partner and Washington DC criminal defense attorney. He received an LL.M in Trial Advocacy from Temple University, is a member of the National College for DUI Defense, and is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

Throwback Thursday Edition: This is a blog originally written and posted by David Benowitz, the firm’s founding partner, in 2011.

Journey of a Criminal Defense Lawyer in DCNo one wanted to do it. Not the paid investigators. Not the other interns. I didn’t want to. The trial of three people accused of gang raping a young woman in an alley was rapidly approaching and no one had interviewed the victim.

It had been months since anyone had tried to even locate her, so when I reluctantly began looking, I found that she’d moved from her last known address. This was before internet database searches or Google, so I hit the road and started talking to the few sketchy contacts I had. I found her cousin on 14th Street in Columbia Heights; he had a phone number for her. He wouldn’t give me the number but I saw him dialing and memorized it. I was able to get an address using a reverse tracing directory.

When I got to the apartment my heart was in my throat; I had no idea what I would find. Would she be bearing the physical damage of brutalization on her face? Would she immediately strike me as a liar? How would I hold up in the face of incomprehensible tragedy?

A beautiful young woman answered the door. I told her who I was and she invited me in. Her three year-old son was there. She was pregnant; I prayed that it wasn’t the result of the rape. We talked for a little while and she called the prosecutor on the case to ask whether she should speak with me about the case. The prosecutor said it was her choice, and she told the prosecutor that she was going to do it.

As we talked and I wrote down what she told me, I played peek-a-boo with her son and he tried to climb in my lap. She didn’t seem to mind.

Now, at that time, in 1992, I’d had some limited experience in interacting with victims of crime. I’d spoken to the families of people who’d been murdered and people who’d been robbed, a stripper who was trying to get back at her ex-boyfriend by claiming that she’d been raped. Nothing could have prepared me for this.

With every word we spoke, as every second passed, I analyzed the effect I was having, the role I was playing in this situation. Because it was clear that this woman was telling the truth about what had happened to her and our client’s role in it. In taking her through every detail of what happened, was I in fact assaulting her? Wasn’t my mere presence violating her? For me this felt like a test, could I put forth my best effort to get information from her without hurting her? Could I be the person who got this information and used it to help the person who’d raped her? I don’t know if from a legal ethics standpoint I was wrong for even considering her well-being; I probably was. At some point it simply didn’t matter, because it dawned on me that she viewed this as catharsis. Because as she related her story, she wasn’t angry or demeaned; she seemed to be gaining strength from the telling.

I hope I’m right about that, because I can still see her face, with one tear on it, almost twenty years later.

This post was written by David Benowitz. He is a founding partner of Price Benowitz LLP and a criminal defense attorney in Washington, DC. David received an LL.M in Trial Advocacy from Temple University, is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and is a member of the National College for DUI Defense.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and firm co-founder

Oct. 1, 2014

US Court of Appeals Scrutinizes Novel Obstruction of Justice Theory in Barry Bonds CaseLast week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in an en banc session, heard argument in the case United States v. Barry Bonds. Bonds seeks to overturn his conviction at trial for obstruction of justice, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. During oral argument, the panel seemed particularly upset with the government’s defense of the obstruction of justice conviction because it was based upon Bonds’ rambling and evasive answer to a question at a grand jury proceeding about whether he was given steroids to inject. Bonds ultimately answered the grand jury’s questions and denied the allegation.

During his grand jury appearance, prosecutors asked Bonds whether trainer Greg Anderson ever gave him “anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?” Bonds referred to his father Bobby Bonds, a former major league player in his response, “I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball but in my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see.” Bonds then answered “no” to similar questions later in his testimony, which his attorney argued was sufficient to cure any non-responsive answers.

At trial, the jury hung on three counts charging Bonds with making false statements when he denied receiving steroids and human growth hormone from Anderson, but was convicted of obstruction of justice for his evasive answer at the grand jury.

The prosecutor arguing before the Ninth Circuit panel, Merry Jean Chan, argued that Bonds had a “corrupt intent” to mislead the grand jury with his rambling answer. Circuit Judge William Fletcher challenged Ms. Chan, calling the prosecution’s definition of obstruction “alarming” because even though Bonds’ initial answers were evasive, he ultimately answered the questions put to him in the same grand jury proceeding.

The government’s novel theory of obstruction in the Bonds case is expansive and dangerous. If the government chooses to promote the standard of obstruction that ascribes criminal intent to an evasive answer given in a grand jury proceeding, even if it is followed by non-evasive answers to similar questions, then a large number of witnesses who testify for the government at trial are guilty of the same offense. For example, in many cases prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, a witness testifies at a grand jury proceeding and then subsequently returns at a later date to change his or her testimony. Many times the witness states that their original testimony was prompted by fear or a desire to not be involved in the case as a witness. However, the government’s formulation of “corrupt intent” as a desire to divert the grand jury’s attention away from the relevant inquiry of the investigation could easily apply to these fearful or unwilling witnesses.

It could also apply to prosecutors who act in an evasive manner, such as those described in United States v. Alonzo Vaughn, 93 A.3d 1237 (D.C. 2014) just reversed by the D.C. Court of Appeals (click here for pdf of case).

In Vaughn, the Court of Appeals found prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) where prosecutors in an aggravated assault case disclosed only a portion of a report detailing the investigation of a key government witness, a corrections officer. The prosecutors repeatedly informed the trial court that the entire report had been disclosed to it for review and in fact filed a motion to preclude the defense from cross-examining the officer about it. After the jury returned a guilty verdict for Defendant Vaughn and his co-defendant, the defense and the trial court learned for the first time that the government had disclosed only a portion of the report and it did not disclose a section that included conclusions that the officer had previously fabricated allegations of inmate assault upon him to justify his own violence toward that inmate. As well, the prosecutors asserted to the trial court and to defense counsel that it was not apparent in the investigative report that the officer at issue had lied, although the report directly contradicted this assertion. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecutors’ failure to disclose this material in a timely manner prior to trial violated their obligations under Brady. Using the theory of obstruction asserted by the government on appeal in the Bonds case, the governments’ own prosecutors in Vaughn could be charged with obstruction if federal courts were to adopt this expansive outlook.

David Benowitz is a veteran criminal defense attorney based in Washington, DC who has successfully defended clients against a variety of charges, including state and federal offenses. Mr. Benowitz is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Maryland as well as the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and the District of Maryland, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and firm co-founder

Sept. 30, 2014

Ray Rice Appeal to be heard by Neutral ArbitratorThe NFL, for the first time, agreed to the use of a neutral arbitrator to hear the appeal of Ray Rice’s indefinite suspension. NFL Players Association (NFLPA) Executive Director DeMaurice Smith informed members by email of this development:

“For the first time ever, the league in the Rice Appeal, has agreed to use a neutral arbitrator which is being selected in discussions with the NFLPA…. Although this occurs in the context of a difficult set of facts and circumstances, it is positive movement on the overall question of neutral arbitration and a fair Personal Conduct discipline process.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had previously agreed to recuse himself from hearing the case because he indicated in a disciplinary letter that he increased Rice’s original two game suspension due to “new evidence” revealed in the video, released by TMZ, depicting Rice knocking out his then-fiancée.

The NFLPA is expected to argue that the Goodell violated Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is interpreted to require one punishment for one offense, and does not allow for the increase in punishment that Goodell imposed without justification. Goodell’s reliance on the video as “new evidence” will be challenged as not credible in light of the allegations that it was actually delivered to the NFL months before Rice’s two-game suspension was imposed.

The most positive development to come out of the Rice debacle is that the appointment of an independent arbitrator is hopefully the first step in removing the disciplinary process from Roger Goodell’s soiled hands. Since he took over as Commissioner in 2006, he has acted as judge, jury, and executioner in player disciplinary matters. It’s clear that this approach is not workable and leads to the type of situation that has arisen here. In an Outside the Lines article, ESPN alleges that Goodell imposed the lenient two-game suspension in part because of his relationship with Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. For Goodell to put himself in a position that leaves him and the NFL open to this type of accusation is incredibly irresponsible.

David Benowitz is a veteran criminal defense attorney based in Washington, DC who has successfully defended clients against a variety of charges, including state and federal offenses. Mr. Benowitz is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Maryland as well as the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and the District of Maryland, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(image by Staff Sgt. Benjamin Hughes of the U.S. Air Force)

Throwback Thursday Edition: This is a blog that was originally written and posted by David Benowitz in 2011.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and firm co-founder

One day I walked into the internship office at Penn to look for ideas about what to do after I graduated. As a Jewish kid from the northeast, it was more or less expected that I would either go to law school, medical school, or into my family’s insurance business. Penn’s internship office was elaborate, with thousands of glossy brochures describing opportunities to travel the world and study art restoration in Florence or government formation in Africa. Then I saw a crumpled piece of paper on a table. It was from the Public Defender Service in Washington, DC, and it described an unpaid internship where students could investigate criminal cases for defense attorneys. The requirements were a car and an aggressive attitude. That fit me perfectly.
I arrived in Washington, DC in January 1992 to start my internship. From the day I walked into PDS, I felt like I was home. At that time, PDS occupied the basement of the old courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue. The attorneys’ offices were in converted jail cells. The walls swelled with a cottage cheese-like substance that later gave me pneumonia. The toilets didn’t work half the time. When I walked in the door for the first day of orientation, it felt like I was returning to a place I’d been before. I was assigned to work with two Felony I attorneys, which means they were handling homicide and rape cases primarily.

I heard them first. Before I saw them, I heard their voices, no music, just echoes through the hallways of the courthouse. It was beautiful and tragic. I saw my first client, a 16-year-old boy charged as an adult with first degree murder, standing in a circle with his friends, singing. He was little, wearing a sweatshirt, facing 80 years in prison. I couldn’t fathom how he could even walk with the weight of that time on him. His friends testified against him at the trial; one of them cut a deal for himself that ensured he would do only 30 years. It didn’t seem real that this kid that I’d gotten to know would get dropped down a hole for almost a century if he lost. Thank God he won. I think about him a lot. He was murdered in an argument over a girl a few years ago. All of his friends who went to prison outlived him.

This blog post is written by , founding partner and Washington D.C. DUI lawyer. He received an LL.M in Trial Advocacy from Temple University, is a member of the National College for DUI Defense, and is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Please contact us for a free consultation.

Throwback Thursday Edition: This is a blog that was originally written and posted by David Benowitz on March 20, 2011.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and firm co-founder

David Benowitz attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate.I recently attended the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the formation of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), where I had the privilege of working as a staff attorney for almost seven years. The anniversary weekend brought back a flood of memories that reminded me of why I became a criminal defense attorney in Washington, DC.  This is the first of a series of posts.  In certain instances I’ve changed the names and identifying characteristics of people to ensure confidentiality. In 1991, I was a senior at the University of Pennsylvania and I was floundering.  I had no idea what I was going to do after I graduated.  I’d thought about becoming a documentary photographer.  My idol was Eugene Richards, a photographer who’d lived with a community of people in the sewers under the streets of Manhattan, who’d lived in a crack house, who’d documented an emergency room, to let the world know about these places and the people in them.

I’d also been in the Big Brother Program while in school, and would remain with the same person for another ten years.  When I met him, my little brother was 12 and was already an enforcer in a drug crew.  I spent a lot of time at his house, getting to know him and his family, and he spent time with me at school and at my parents’ home.  What I saw of the opportunities he had, what he thought of his life and where it was going, and his world in general, had a big impact on me.

I had no fucking clue what to do with this kid.  I found out later that I’d been assigned to my little brother because I was the only one who was physically bigger than him, and I was given no one to call for advice or support on how to interact with him.  So I made it up as I went along.  I figured it would be a hard sell to get him to trust me.  I taught him to drive my parents’ car in the shitty parts of West Philadelphia.  He told me later that he began to trust me when he asked if he could go to the 7-11 by himself and use my ATM card to get the money I needed for us to go get something to eat.  We’d spend time hanging out at my fraternity house, where I let him haze the pledges.  One time he almost choked me unconscious; I had to flip him halfway across the room to get him off of me.

I used to take his father to the local methadone clinic to pick up his daily dose, which I later found out he would sell.  One day we drove up and as I got out of the car, the crowd around the door to the clinic scattered.  His father told me that they must have thought I was a cop.  Since there was a marked police car parked next to the clinic, I asked him why anyone would care if another cop showed up.  He said “they’re paid off but no one here knows you.”

David Benowitz recalls his time as a Big Brother.I spent a lot of time at his house hanging out with his family; I found that I was more comfortable there than on campus.  I remember one night we were all sitting out on the front stoop at around midnight.  His sister had gone to the prom that night wearing a dress she’d made.  It was so peaceful that I fell asleep while looking up at the few stars you could see through the Philadelphia haze.

Special thanks to Attorney Anne Marie Rizzo for her assistance with this post.  is a criminal lawyer in Washington DC and founding partner of Price Benowtiz LLP. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and is recognized by the National Board of Trial Advocacy as a Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate.

By David Benowitz, criminal defense attorney and firm co-founder
Sept. 16, 2014

Given the justifiable uproar generated by the developments in the cases of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, it’s not surprising that the Carolina Panthers deactivated defensive end Greg Hardy for Sunday’s game against the Detroit Lions.  Hardy was convicted of misdemeanor counts of domestic assault after a trial before a judge.  He received a 60-day suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.  What’s important to note about Hardy’s legal situation is that, following his conviction, he has requested a jury trial.  In North Carolina, like other states such as Maryland, every trial on a misdemeanor charge is conducted first before a judge in a district court.  If you are acquitted, that’s the end of the matter.  However, if you’re convicted, you are entitled to a trial “de novo” in front of a jury.

According to the North Carolina Supreme Court, a de novo proceeding is conducted as if there had been no previous trial.  State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970).  Hardy has this absolute right to a new trial, which totally disregards the original trial and verdict of the district court.  State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).  In Colten v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court termed the verdict in the lower court in a de novo system like North Carolina’s as no more than an offer to settle the state’s case.   407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972).  The purpose of this procedure is to provide defendants charged with misdemeanors the right to a “speedy trial” and the opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own.  Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Many commentators have been calling for Hardy’s suspension, saying that he’s received due process, been convicted, and that the NFL should not wait to suspend him while his case is “on appeal.”  However, the traditional “appeal” process is totally different than the new trial North Carolina’s de novo system allows Hardy.  Hardy has not received the due process he’s allowed by a long shot.  It’s quite possible that he could win a jury trial.  The NFL needs to be cognizant of the crucial differences in the legal systems of the various states where its players may find themselves embroiled in a legal matter.

David Benowitz is a veteran criminal defense attorney based in Washington, DC who has successfully defended clients against a variety of charges, including state and federal offenses. Mr. Benowitz is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Maryland as well as the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and the District of Maryland, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard two cases this week related to whether or not police officers should be able to search an arrested individual’s cell phone without a warrant. Justices weighed in on the fine line between what constitutes a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights versus the importance of gaining evidence in the pursuit of a criminal conviction.

On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard two cases surrounding the matter of police having unlimited access to the information stored on someone’s smartphone without first obtaining a search warrant. Given that the initial rights granted to American citizens protecting them against unlawful search and seizure had no way of predicting that someday individuals would be able to carry so much personal information on their person, the Supreme Court now faces a quandary in terms of what law enforcement officials should have access to without securing a warrant. Considering the fact that people are now able to carry a lifetime or more of personal data — including photographs, communications, and records — on their cellphones, the question remains as to whether that easily accessible information constitutes the same private property domain such as a person’s home or car.

Police have long been able to search the property they find on a person at the time of arrest without a warrant for reasons of police safety and also to prevent destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court now has to decide if the search of someone’s cell phone, and the vast amounts of information contained therein, should be treated in the same manner. Concerns have been raised regarding the fact that cell phones could be locked or encrypted to prevent police from accessing evidence if the cell phone search is delayed until officers obtain a warrant.

The Supreme Court justices so far appear divided on the issue, with some arguing that the police should only be able to search material that is relevant to the arrest. Allowing police limitless access to the personal information stored on a person’s cell phone could be a major violation of privacy and people who are arrested even for minor crimes could be subject to unwarranted invasions of their privacy if such searches are permitted to continue.

Mobile technology and smartphones are having an increasingly significant impact on criminal procedure and the American justice system. It is expected that the Supreme Court will reach a decision by late June. We eagerly await that decision as it will have a profound impact on criminal prosecutions and the Constitutional rights of all American citizens.

Contact Our White Collar Attorneys Today