I don't consider myself one of those guilty-or-innocent types of attorneys, someone who is casting judgment on anyone. I have a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt type of approach: what I care about is what the government is charging my client with, and what kind of evidence prosecutors are presenting. If I really need to know something from my client I'm going to ask - but I don't interrogate. It's not my job. I am looking at the case and the nature of the charges, not what my client allegedly did or didn't do.

My job is to determine what my client is facing - and tell them clearly what the scenarios are, and what the defense is going to be. It goes back to establishing reasonable doubt. That's an important role of an effective criminal-defense attorney.

I've always enjoyed criminal-defense work - for one thing, I'm dealing with people at a time when they really need my skills. And the stakes can be very high. The (criminal-justice) system has become much tougher on the defendant, in the sense that such things as plea cutoffs and mandatory sentencing are pushing early settlements, and making the stakes of a trial that much greater. That's why I'm taking fewer cases to trial.

And I like the fact that the criminal-defense process isn't overwhelmed by paperwork - paperwork is definitely overwhelming other areas of the law. Criminal law is still a I have no "institutional" clients - all of my clients are people with real-world problems. And I handle every aspect of their case.

I've been fortunate running my own practice. You get to do your own thing - and handle the cases in the way you feel is best for a client. I'm very hands-on - I manage every step of a case, and bring my expertise to every one - and that's only benefited those I represent.