Charged for buying or receiving stolen goods for stolen license plates on a car I did not own

[quincy]

I think you did more than most would as well. Unfortunately, that doesn't help you. You didn't do the one thing that would have. Match the plate number on the car to the plate number on the registration.

The fact that he said he checked everything is the part of his story that I actually find the hardest to believe.

 

[Just Blue]

Yeah. I'm seeing that now. Was looking for some basic thoughts from attorneys before I see mine Thursday. But this isn't very helpful.

Read the TOS.

Why do people never read it?

 

[quincy]

Read the TOS.

Why do people never read it?

Most people don't read Terms and Conditions (or legal documents).

 

[Just Blue]

Most people don't read Terms and Conditions (or legal documents).

I know.

 

[adjusterjack]

This active charge came up on a background check

"Active charge"?

Meaning you haven't yet been convicted or acquitted?

Better hire an attorney.

If you can beat the charge (get acquitted or dismissed) you might be able to get the charge expunged from the records so it doesn't show up later.

 

[HRZ]

Prosecution must prove you knew plates were stolen ....but that said...shut up and discuss things only with attorney of your choice ..

I find it a big credibility gap to think the car owner /friend didn't know something was amiss with the plates...but as to that...shut up ..and discuss it only with your attorney ..

 

[justalayman]

There is no way to look up plate numbers available to those outside law enforcement so I feel like I did more than most people would do. .

Really? You don’t have a little piece of paper (called a registration in states I’m familiar with) that shows the plate number assigned to that car? In my state it’s mandatory to carry it in the car?


But yes, you did much more than I or most people would.

But I also know none of my friends would put a stolen plate on their car. Maybe you need to be pickier when it comes to friends.

 

[Taxing Matters]

First: We are not attorneys (read the "IMPORTANT NOTICE" at the bottom of every page).

Well, a couple of members here are attorneys, but you are correct that this is not a site for obtaining actual legal advice. It is a site for general information and discussion of the law.

Second: Unless you've RETAINED the attorney (or otherwise established an attorney/client relationship), they shouldn't talk to you about this.

I disagree with that. The attorney must discuss the matter with the prospective client prior to entering into the fee agreement. An attorney should not take on a client blind; the attorney has to know what the client's situatuion is in order to know if the attorney is competent to handle the client's matter as well as decide if it is a matter the attorney wants to handle. Also, the client needs to know from the prospective attorney his/her thoughts on the matter before retaining the attorney. Note that discussions an attorney has with a prospective client are also protected by the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality. So the prospective client is not at risk when discussing his legal matters with an attorney whom he or she is considering to hire, even if the attorney and client never actually enter into an agreement for representation.

 

[quincy]

Well, a couple of members here are attorneys, but you are correct that this is not a site for obtaining actual legal advice. It is a site for general information and discussion of the law.



I disagree with that. The attorney must discuss the matter with the prospective client prior to entering into the fee agreement. An attorney should not take on a client blind; the attorney has to know what the client's situatuion is in order to know if the attorney is competent to handle the client's matter as well as decide if it is a matter the attorney wants to handle. Also, the client needs to know from the prospective attorney his/her thoughts on the matter before retaining the attorney. Note that discussions an attorney has with a prospective client are also protected by the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality. So the prospective client is not at risk when discussing his legal matters with an attorney whom he or she is considering to hire, even if the attorney and client never actually enter into an agreement for representation.

I think Zigner was referring primarily to what those on this forum can and cannot do.

Attorney or not, all members of this forum are limited in what we can provide to posters. For legal advice specific to a poster's legal issue, the poster must seek out an attorney licensed to practice in their own jurisdiction.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I think Zigner was referring primarily to what those on this forum can and cannot do.

That may be so, but as written Zigner's statement about talking only to attorneys that have already been retained would apply to more than just talking with people in this forum; it would also apply to the circumstance where the prospective client seeks out and meets with an attorney the prospective client is thinking of hiring and who has a discussion with that attorney prior to entering into an agreement to retain that attorney. I wanted to make sure that people understand that they can have those discussions with attorneys in that situation and still be protected by the confidentiality rules.

 

[quincy]

That may be so, but as written Zigner's statement about talking only to attorneys that have already been retained would apply to more than just talking with people in this forum; it would also apply to the circumstance where the prospective client seeks out and meets with an attorney the prospective client is thinking of hiring and who has a discussion with that attorney prior to entering into an agreement to retain that attorney. I wanted to make sure that people understand that they can have those discussions with attorneys in that situation and still be protected by the confidentiality rules.

Fair enough.

But I think most attorneys inform would-be clients of the confidential nature of their discussions when they first meet with them anyway.

No such confidentiality can be expected on a forum.

 

[Zigner]

Well, a couple of members here are attorneys, but you are correct that this is not a site for obtaining actual legal advice. It is a site for general information and discussion of the law.

You are right...we do have attorneys here, but, by and large, the volunteers are not attorneys.

Note that discussions an attorney has with a prospective client are also protected by the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality. So the prospective client is not at risk when discussing his legal matters with an attorney whom he or she is considering to hire, even if the attorney and client never actually enter into an agreement for representation.

This was covered by "... (or otherwise established an attorney/client relationship )...

 

[Taxing Matters]

This was covered by "... (or otherwise established an attorney/client relationship )...

Well, technically, no. A potential client discussing a matter with an attorney prior to retaining the attorney does not yet establish an attorney-client relationship. That is why the ABA model rules of Professional Conduct (which many states use as the basis for their rules of professional conduct) has Rule 1.18 that covers the prospective client situation and makes clear that the duty of confidentiality applies in that situation, too.

 

[Zigner]

Well, technically, no. A potential client discussing a matter with an attorney prior to retaining the attorney does not yet establish an attorney-client relationship. That is why the ABA model rules of Professional Conduct (which many states use as the basis for their rules of professional conduct) has Rule 1.18 that covers the prospective client situation and makes clear that the duty of confidentiality applies in that situation, too.

Fair enough - I agree that my attempt to convey the fact that some sort of confidentiality before talking about this was not properly explained.