…is a bad idea.

I won’t link to it, but I just ran across an attorney’s web page that I hope was not written by him. (N.B. It was not an Austin lawyer.)

 

The website first acknowledges that in today’s world you need to drive: work, school, church, groceries, etc., and that one of the consequences of a DWI arrest can be loss of driver’s license, and then the attorney advertises that he will:

 

“effectively argue your need for a license at the ALR hearing”

 

In other words, hire me, and I’ll let the judge know that your license shouldn’t be suspended because you really need it.

 

Excuse me? Are you – that is, the lawyer, not the client – are you serious?

 

It’s not uncommon for clients to suggest that I should stress to the Administrative Law Judge that they really need their license, and perhaps if we demonstrate exactly how much they have to drive that they can avoid a suspension. Alas, I have to disabuse them of the notion that the ALR process is concerned at all about their essential need for a license; that’s what an occupational license is for, and those aren’t issued at the suspension hearing, or even by that type of judge.

 

Now it’s likely that the lawyer didn’t write the webpage content himself (see examples of comment spamming by marketers on blogs here and here). But you’d at least think he would have read it by now.