Criminal forfeiture is a powerful legal tool used by law enforcement agencies to deprive criminals of property obtained through or used in illegal activities. This process, which occurs as part of a criminal prosecution, can have significant consequences for defendants and their assets. Understanding the intricacies of criminal forfeiture is crucial for anyone facing criminal charges or seeking to protect their property rights in the face of legal proceedings.
Unlike its civil counterpart, criminal forfeiture requires a conviction before the government can permanently seize assets. This in personam action is brought against the defendant as part of the criminal case, with the forfeiture becoming part of the sentence upon conviction. The process is designed to strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains and dismantle the financial infrastructure of criminal enterprises. However, it also raises important questions about property rights, due process, and the balance between law enforcement objectives and individual liberties.
The legal landscape of criminal forfeiture is complex and ever-evolving. Federal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 982 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, provide the framework for criminal forfeiture in various types of cases, including drug offenses, money laundering, and organized crime. These laws outline the types of property subject to forfeiture, the procedures for seizing and forfeiting assets, and the rights of property owners and third parties with interests in the forfeited property.
One of the key aspects of criminal forfeiture is the requirement for prosecutors to include forfeiture allegations in the indictment or information. This serves as notice to the defendant that the government intends to seek forfeiture of specific property upon conviction. The property must be connected to the criminal activity for which the defendant is charged, either as proceeds of the crime or as property used to facilitate the offense.
The burden of proof in criminal forfeiture cases is typically lower than that required for a criminal conviction. While guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the forfeiture aspect often only requires a preponderance of the evidence standard. This means that prosecutors need only show that it is more likely than not that the property is subject to forfeiture. This lower standard has been a point of contention among legal scholars and defense attorneys, who argue that it may lead to unjust seizures of property.
Defendants facing criminal forfeiture have several avenues for protecting their assets. One crucial strategy is to challenge the connection between the property and the alleged criminal activity. This may involve demonstrating that the assets were acquired through legitimate means or that they were not used to facilitate any crime. Additionally, defendants can argue that the forfeiture is disproportionate to the offense, invoking the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
The preliminary forfeiture order is a critical juncture in the criminal forfeiture process. This order, issued after conviction but before sentencing, identifies the property subject to forfeiture. At this stage, third parties with interests in the property have the opportunity to assert their claims through an ancillary proceeding. This aspect of criminal forfeiture is designed to protect innocent owners who may have a legitimate interest in the property being forfeited.
Asset tracing plays a significant role in criminal forfeiture cases, especially when dealing with complex financial crimes. Prosecutors and investigators must often follow a trail of transactions to identify and locate assets derived from criminal activity. This can involve analyzing bank records, property deeds, and other financial documents to establish the connection between the crime and the targeted assets. The use of sophisticated financial forensics has become increasingly important in high-stakes forfeiture cases involving white-collar crimes and international money laundering schemes.
The impact of criminal forfeiture extends beyond the immediate loss of property. It can have long-lasting effects on a defendant’s financial stability, business operations, and personal life. In cases involving business assets, forfeiture can lead to the closure of companies and loss of jobs for innocent employees. This collateral damage has led to debates about the appropriate scope and application of forfeiture laws.
One of the most contentious aspects of criminal forfeiture is its potential to affect innocent third parties. While the law provides mechanisms for third-party claimants to assert their interests, the process can be complex and burdensome. Spouses, business partners, or creditors may find themselves entangled in forfeiture proceedings, fighting to protect their legitimate interests in property targeted for seizure. This has led to calls for reform to better protect innocent owners and ensure that forfeiture laws are not used in ways that unfairly punish those not involved in criminal activity.
The substitute asset provision is another important feature of criminal forfeiture law. This allows the government to seize other assets of equivalent value if the specific property subject to forfeiture cannot be located, has been transferred to a third party, has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, has been substantially diminished in value, or has been commingled with other property that cannot be easily divided. This provision ensures that criminals cannot evade forfeiture by hiding or transferring assets, but it also raises concerns about the potential overreach of forfeiture powers.
International cooperation plays an increasingly important role in criminal forfeiture cases, especially those involving transnational organized crime or money laundering. Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and other international agreements facilitate the sharing of information and the enforcement of forfeiture orders across borders. This global approach to asset recovery has become essential in combating sophisticated criminal networks that operate across multiple jurisdictions.
The use of criminal forfeiture in cybercrime cases presents unique challenges and opportunities. As digital assets and cryptocurrencies become more prevalent, law enforcement agencies are adapting their forfeiture strategies to address these new forms of property. The seizure of digital wallets, the tracing of cryptocurrency transactions, and the forfeiture of assets stored on blockchain networks are emerging areas of practice that require specialized knowledge and tools.
The intersection of criminal forfeiture with bankruptcy law can create complex legal scenarios. When a defendant facing forfeiture files for bankruptcy, it can trigger competing claims between the government seeking forfeiture and creditors seeking repayment. Courts must navigate these conflicting interests, often balancing the goals of criminal justice with the principles of bankruptcy protection.
Restitution is another important consideration in criminal forfeiture cases. Forfeited assets can be used to compensate victims of crimes, providing a mechanism for restorative justice. However, balancing the interests of victims with the government’s desire to use forfeited assets for law enforcement purposes can be challenging. Some jurisdictions have implemented specific provisions to prioritize victim compensation in the distribution of forfeited assets.
The role of plea bargaining in criminal forfeiture cases cannot be overstated. Defendants may negotiate forfeiture terms as part of a plea agreement, potentially limiting the scope of assets subject to seizure in exchange for a guilty plea. This practice has been criticized by some as potentially coercive, while others view it as a necessary tool for efficient case resolution.
Constitutional challenges to criminal forfeiture continue to shape the legal landscape. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines has been invoked to challenge disproportionate forfeitures. Additionally, due process concerns arise when forfeiture proceedings impact property rights without adequate safeguards. Courts have grappled with these issues, striving to balance law enforcement needs with constitutional protections.
The use of forfeited assets by law enforcement agencies has been a subject of controversy. Critics argue that allowing agencies to benefit directly from forfeitures creates perverse incentives, potentially encouraging aggressive seizure practices. This has led to calls for reform, with some jurisdictions implementing measures to redirect forfeiture proceeds to general funds or specific programs unrelated to law enforcement.
Parallel proceedings involving both criminal and civil forfeiture actions can complicate legal strategies for defendants. While criminal forfeiture requires a conviction, civil forfeiture does not, allowing the government to pursue asset seizure through multiple avenues. Navigating these parallel tracks requires careful consideration of how actions in one proceeding might impact the other.
The role of expert witnesses in criminal forfeiture cases is often crucial, particularly in complex financial crimes. Forensic accountants, valuation experts, and industry specialists may be called upon to testify about the origin, value, and nature of assets subject to forfeiture. Their testimony can be pivotal in establishing or refuting the connection between assets and alleged criminal activity.
Pre-trial restraining orders are another tool used in criminal forfeiture cases to preserve assets pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. These orders can freeze bank accounts, prevent the sale of property, or restrict the use of assets believed to be connected to criminal activity. While designed to prevent the dissipation of potentially forfeitable assets, these orders can have significant impacts on defendants’ ability to conduct business or maintain their standard of living prior to trial.
The concept of relation back in criminal forfeiture law means that the government’s interest in forfeitable property vests at the time the criminal act giving rise to forfeiture is committed. This doctrine can have significant implications for third parties who acquire interests in the property after the criminal act but before the forfeiture order. Understanding the relation back doctrine is crucial for anyone dealing with potentially forfeitable assets.
Statutory interpretation plays a significant role in criminal forfeiture cases, as courts must often grapple with the precise meaning and scope of forfeiture statutes. The language used in these laws can have profound implications for which assets are subject to forfeiture and under what circumstances. Attorneys specializing in forfeiture law must stay abreast of judicial interpretations and legislative changes that may affect their clients’ cases.
The impact of criminal forfeiture on business entities raises unique considerations. When a corporation or other business entity is involved in criminal activity, forfeiture actions can target not only specific assets but potentially the entire business. This can have far-reaching consequences for shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders who may have had no knowledge of or involvement in the criminal conduct.
Post-conviction relief in the context of criminal forfeiture presents another layer of complexity. Defendants who successfully appeal their convictions or have them overturned may seek the return of forfeited assets. However, the process for recovering such assets can be challenging, especially if they have already been liquidated or distributed by the government.
The intersection of criminal forfeiture with tax law creates additional complications. Forfeited assets may have tax implications for defendants, and the IRS may assert claims on forfeited property to satisfy outstanding tax liabilities. Understanding the tax consequences of forfeiture is essential for both defendants and their legal counsel.
Ethical considerations for attorneys handling criminal forfeiture cases are paramount. Lawyers must navigate the complex terrain of asset disclosure, ensuring they do not inadvertently assist in concealing forfeitable assets while zealously representing their clients’ interests. The potential for conflicts of interest, particularly when representing multiple defendants or when attorneys’ fees are paid from potentially forfeitable funds, requires careful consideration and ethical scrutiny.
The role of technology in criminal forfeiture cases continues to evolve. Advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to identify patterns of financial transactions that may indicate criminal activity. These technological advancements present both opportunities and challenges for law enforcement and defense attorneys alike.
Legislative reforms to criminal forfeiture laws are an ongoing process, reflecting changing attitudes towards property rights and law enforcement practices. Some jurisdictions have implemented stricter standards for forfeiture, increased transparency requirements, or altered the distribution of forfeiture proceeds. Staying informed about these legislative changes is crucial for all parties involved in forfeiture proceedings.
The impact of criminal forfeiture on family members of defendants is an often-overlooked aspect of these proceedings. Spouses and children may find their lives upended by the seizure of family homes, vehicles, or other assets, even if they had no involvement in or knowledge of the criminal activity. This collateral impact has led to debates about the fairness and proportionality of forfeiture actions.
Comparative analysis of criminal forfeiture laws across different jurisdictions provides valuable insights into best practices and potential areas for reform. While federal law provides a framework for criminal forfeiture, state laws can vary significantly in their approach to asset seizure and forfeiture. Understanding these variations is crucial for attorneys practicing in multiple jurisdictions.
The role of public opinion in shaping criminal forfeiture policy cannot be underestimated. High-profile cases and media coverage of perceived abuses have led to increased scrutiny of forfeiture practices. This public discourse has influenced legislative reforms and judicial interpretations of forfeiture laws in many jurisdictions.
In conclusion, criminal forfeiture remains a complex and evolving area of law with significant implications for property rights, criminal justice, and law enforcement practices. As legal professionals, policymakers, and the public continue to grapple with the balance between effective crime deterrence and protection of individual rights, the landscape of criminal forfeiture is likely to see further developments and refinements in the years to come. Those facing potential forfeiture actions or seeking to protect their assets must stay informed about these legal developments and seek experienced counsel to navigate the intricate web of criminal forfeiture law.
Website citations:
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_forfeiture
- https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture
- https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-634-insanity-defense-reform-act-1984
- https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illicit-finance/asset-forfeiture/forfeiture-overview
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22005
Citations:
https://reason.com/2024/02/06/oklahoma-gov-kevin-stitt-says-civil-asset-forfeiture-isnt-fair-and-calls-for-reforms/
https://www.eyeonenforcement.com/2024/06/supreme-court-rejects-due-process-challenge-to-civil-forfeiture/
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-03/afp_fy_2025_pb_narrative_2.27.24_final_1.pdf
https://walberg.house.gov/civil-asset-forfeiture-reform
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/asset-forfeiture-laws-by-state.html
English 
Español de México
Criminal Forfeiture: Protecting Your Assets in Legal Proceedings
Home » Blog » Criminal Law » Criminal Forfeiture: Protecting Your Assets in Legal Proceedings
Video Categories
Criminal forfeiture is a powerful legal tool used by law enforcement agencies to deprive criminals of property obtained through or used in illegal activities. This process, which occurs as part of a criminal prosecution, can have significant consequences for defendants and their assets. Understanding the intricacies of criminal forfeiture is crucial for anyone facing criminal charges or seeking to protect their property rights in the face of legal proceedings.
Unlike its civil counterpart, criminal forfeiture requires a conviction before the government can permanently seize assets. This in personam action is brought against the defendant as part of the criminal case, with the forfeiture becoming part of the sentence upon conviction. The process is designed to strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains and dismantle the financial infrastructure of criminal enterprises. However, it also raises important questions about property rights, due process, and the balance between law enforcement objectives and individual liberties.
The legal landscape of criminal forfeiture is complex and ever-evolving. Federal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 982 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, provide the framework for criminal forfeiture in various types of cases, including drug offenses, money laundering, and organized crime. These laws outline the types of property subject to forfeiture, the procedures for seizing and forfeiting assets, and the rights of property owners and third parties with interests in the forfeited property.
One of the key aspects of criminal forfeiture is the requirement for prosecutors to include forfeiture allegations in the indictment or information. This serves as notice to the defendant that the government intends to seek forfeiture of specific property upon conviction. The property must be connected to the criminal activity for which the defendant is charged, either as proceeds of the crime or as property used to facilitate the offense.
The burden of proof in criminal forfeiture cases is typically lower than that required for a criminal conviction. While guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the forfeiture aspect often only requires a preponderance of the evidence standard. This means that prosecutors need only show that it is more likely than not that the property is subject to forfeiture. This lower standard has been a point of contention among legal scholars and defense attorneys, who argue that it may lead to unjust seizures of property.
Defendants facing criminal forfeiture have several avenues for protecting their assets. One crucial strategy is to challenge the connection between the property and the alleged criminal activity. This may involve demonstrating that the assets were acquired through legitimate means or that they were not used to facilitate any crime. Additionally, defendants can argue that the forfeiture is disproportionate to the offense, invoking the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
The preliminary forfeiture order is a critical juncture in the criminal forfeiture process. This order, issued after conviction but before sentencing, identifies the property subject to forfeiture. At this stage, third parties with interests in the property have the opportunity to assert their claims through an ancillary proceeding. This aspect of criminal forfeiture is designed to protect innocent owners who may have a legitimate interest in the property being forfeited.
Asset tracing plays a significant role in criminal forfeiture cases, especially when dealing with complex financial crimes. Prosecutors and investigators must often follow a trail of transactions to identify and locate assets derived from criminal activity. This can involve analyzing bank records, property deeds, and other financial documents to establish the connection between the crime and the targeted assets. The use of sophisticated financial forensics has become increasingly important in high-stakes forfeiture cases involving white-collar crimes and international money laundering schemes.
The impact of criminal forfeiture extends beyond the immediate loss of property. It can have long-lasting effects on a defendant’s financial stability, business operations, and personal life. In cases involving business assets, forfeiture can lead to the closure of companies and loss of jobs for innocent employees. This collateral damage has led to debates about the appropriate scope and application of forfeiture laws.
One of the most contentious aspects of criminal forfeiture is its potential to affect innocent third parties. While the law provides mechanisms for third-party claimants to assert their interests, the process can be complex and burdensome. Spouses, business partners, or creditors may find themselves entangled in forfeiture proceedings, fighting to protect their legitimate interests in property targeted for seizure. This has led to calls for reform to better protect innocent owners and ensure that forfeiture laws are not used in ways that unfairly punish those not involved in criminal activity.
The substitute asset provision is another important feature of criminal forfeiture law. This allows the government to seize other assets of equivalent value if the specific property subject to forfeiture cannot be located, has been transferred to a third party, has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, has been substantially diminished in value, or has been commingled with other property that cannot be easily divided. This provision ensures that criminals cannot evade forfeiture by hiding or transferring assets, but it also raises concerns about the potential overreach of forfeiture powers.
International cooperation plays an increasingly important role in criminal forfeiture cases, especially those involving transnational organized crime or money laundering. Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and other international agreements facilitate the sharing of information and the enforcement of forfeiture orders across borders. This global approach to asset recovery has become essential in combating sophisticated criminal networks that operate across multiple jurisdictions.
The use of criminal forfeiture in cybercrime cases presents unique challenges and opportunities. As digital assets and cryptocurrencies become more prevalent, law enforcement agencies are adapting their forfeiture strategies to address these new forms of property. The seizure of digital wallets, the tracing of cryptocurrency transactions, and the forfeiture of assets stored on blockchain networks are emerging areas of practice that require specialized knowledge and tools.
The intersection of criminal forfeiture with bankruptcy law can create complex legal scenarios. When a defendant facing forfeiture files for bankruptcy, it can trigger competing claims between the government seeking forfeiture and creditors seeking repayment. Courts must navigate these conflicting interests, often balancing the goals of criminal justice with the principles of bankruptcy protection.
Restitution is another important consideration in criminal forfeiture cases. Forfeited assets can be used to compensate victims of crimes, providing a mechanism for restorative justice. However, balancing the interests of victims with the government’s desire to use forfeited assets for law enforcement purposes can be challenging. Some jurisdictions have implemented specific provisions to prioritize victim compensation in the distribution of forfeited assets.
The role of plea bargaining in criminal forfeiture cases cannot be overstated. Defendants may negotiate forfeiture terms as part of a plea agreement, potentially limiting the scope of assets subject to seizure in exchange for a guilty plea. This practice has been criticized by some as potentially coercive, while others view it as a necessary tool for efficient case resolution.
Constitutional challenges to criminal forfeiture continue to shape the legal landscape. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines has been invoked to challenge disproportionate forfeitures. Additionally, due process concerns arise when forfeiture proceedings impact property rights without adequate safeguards. Courts have grappled with these issues, striving to balance law enforcement needs with constitutional protections.
The use of forfeited assets by law enforcement agencies has been a subject of controversy. Critics argue that allowing agencies to benefit directly from forfeitures creates perverse incentives, potentially encouraging aggressive seizure practices. This has led to calls for reform, with some jurisdictions implementing measures to redirect forfeiture proceeds to general funds or specific programs unrelated to law enforcement.
Parallel proceedings involving both criminal and civil forfeiture actions can complicate legal strategies for defendants. While criminal forfeiture requires a conviction, civil forfeiture does not, allowing the government to pursue asset seizure through multiple avenues. Navigating these parallel tracks requires careful consideration of how actions in one proceeding might impact the other.
The role of expert witnesses in criminal forfeiture cases is often crucial, particularly in complex financial crimes. Forensic accountants, valuation experts, and industry specialists may be called upon to testify about the origin, value, and nature of assets subject to forfeiture. Their testimony can be pivotal in establishing or refuting the connection between assets and alleged criminal activity.
Pre-trial restraining orders are another tool used in criminal forfeiture cases to preserve assets pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. These orders can freeze bank accounts, prevent the sale of property, or restrict the use of assets believed to be connected to criminal activity. While designed to prevent the dissipation of potentially forfeitable assets, these orders can have significant impacts on defendants’ ability to conduct business or maintain their standard of living prior to trial.
The concept of relation back in criminal forfeiture law means that the government’s interest in forfeitable property vests at the time the criminal act giving rise to forfeiture is committed. This doctrine can have significant implications for third parties who acquire interests in the property after the criminal act but before the forfeiture order. Understanding the relation back doctrine is crucial for anyone dealing with potentially forfeitable assets.
Statutory interpretation plays a significant role in criminal forfeiture cases, as courts must often grapple with the precise meaning and scope of forfeiture statutes. The language used in these laws can have profound implications for which assets are subject to forfeiture and under what circumstances. Attorneys specializing in forfeiture law must stay abreast of judicial interpretations and legislative changes that may affect their clients’ cases.
The impact of criminal forfeiture on business entities raises unique considerations. When a corporation or other business entity is involved in criminal activity, forfeiture actions can target not only specific assets but potentially the entire business. This can have far-reaching consequences for shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders who may have had no knowledge of or involvement in the criminal conduct.
Post-conviction relief in the context of criminal forfeiture presents another layer of complexity. Defendants who successfully appeal their convictions or have them overturned may seek the return of forfeited assets. However, the process for recovering such assets can be challenging, especially if they have already been liquidated or distributed by the government.
The intersection of criminal forfeiture with tax law creates additional complications. Forfeited assets may have tax implications for defendants, and the IRS may assert claims on forfeited property to satisfy outstanding tax liabilities. Understanding the tax consequences of forfeiture is essential for both defendants and their legal counsel.
Ethical considerations for attorneys handling criminal forfeiture cases are paramount. Lawyers must navigate the complex terrain of asset disclosure, ensuring they do not inadvertently assist in concealing forfeitable assets while zealously representing their clients’ interests. The potential for conflicts of interest, particularly when representing multiple defendants or when attorneys’ fees are paid from potentially forfeitable funds, requires careful consideration and ethical scrutiny.
The role of technology in criminal forfeiture cases continues to evolve. Advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to identify patterns of financial transactions that may indicate criminal activity. These technological advancements present both opportunities and challenges for law enforcement and defense attorneys alike.
Legislative reforms to criminal forfeiture laws are an ongoing process, reflecting changing attitudes towards property rights and law enforcement practices. Some jurisdictions have implemented stricter standards for forfeiture, increased transparency requirements, or altered the distribution of forfeiture proceeds. Staying informed about these legislative changes is crucial for all parties involved in forfeiture proceedings.
The impact of criminal forfeiture on family members of defendants is an often-overlooked aspect of these proceedings. Spouses and children may find their lives upended by the seizure of family homes, vehicles, or other assets, even if they had no involvement in or knowledge of the criminal activity. This collateral impact has led to debates about the fairness and proportionality of forfeiture actions.
Comparative analysis of criminal forfeiture laws across different jurisdictions provides valuable insights into best practices and potential areas for reform. While federal law provides a framework for criminal forfeiture, state laws can vary significantly in their approach to asset seizure and forfeiture. Understanding these variations is crucial for attorneys practicing in multiple jurisdictions.
The role of public opinion in shaping criminal forfeiture policy cannot be underestimated. High-profile cases and media coverage of perceived abuses have led to increased scrutiny of forfeiture practices. This public discourse has influenced legislative reforms and judicial interpretations of forfeiture laws in many jurisdictions.
In conclusion, criminal forfeiture remains a complex and evolving area of law with significant implications for property rights, criminal justice, and law enforcement practices. As legal professionals, policymakers, and the public continue to grapple with the balance between effective crime deterrence and protection of individual rights, the landscape of criminal forfeiture is likely to see further developments and refinements in the years to come. Those facing potential forfeiture actions or seeking to protect their assets must stay informed about these legal developments and seek experienced counsel to navigate the intricate web of criminal forfeiture law.
Website citations:
Citations:
https://reason.com/2024/02/06/oklahoma-gov-kevin-stitt-says-civil-asset-forfeiture-isnt-fair-and-calls-for-reforms/
https://www.eyeonenforcement.com/2024/06/supreme-court-rejects-due-process-challenge-to-civil-forfeiture/
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-03/afp_fy_2025_pb_narrative_2.27.24_final_1.pdf
https://walberg.house.gov/civil-asset-forfeiture-reform
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/asset-forfeiture-laws-by-state.html
Subscribe to Our Newsletter for Updates
About Attorneys.Media
Attorneys.Media is an innovative media platform designed to bridge the gap between legal professionals and the public. It leverages the power of video content to demystify complex legal topics, making it easier for individuals to understand various aspects of the law. By featuring interviews with lawyers who specialize in different fields, the platform provides valuable insights into both civil and criminal legal issues.
The business model of Attorneys.Media not only enhances public knowledge about legal matters but also offers attorneys a unique opportunity to showcase their expertise and connect with potential clients. The video interviews cover a broad spectrum of legal topics, offering viewers a deeper understanding of legal processes, rights, and considerations within different contexts.
For those seeking legal information, Attorneys.Media serves as a dynamic and accessible resource. The emphasis on video content caters to the growing preference for visual and auditory learning, making complex legal information more digestible for the general public.
Concurrently, for legal professionals, the platform provides a valuable avenue for visibility and engagement with a wider audience, potentially expanding their client base.
Uniquely, Attorneys.Media represents a modern approach to facilitating the education and knowledge of legal issues within the public sector and the subsequent legal consultation with local attorneys.