Proven Results

In June of 1978, Richard Williams, having just received his Juris Doctorate degree, was accepted by the nationally renowned Court Practice Institute in Chicago, Illinois, to attend their rigorous trial practice training and competition. Up to that point in time no attorney who had not yet been admitted to a State or Federal Bar had been accepted to take this curriculum. The "judges" were all deans of law schools from across the country who had been invited on honorariums, the "witnesses" were all students at Chicago's Goodman Institute School of Acting. Each day (eight before being assigned to a two day Federal "trial" scenario) groups of six seasoned attorneys from all over the country went "five against one" with the making and meeting of objections with the Goodman witnesses. Mr. Williams, defending the Chicago Burlington Railway in a double homicide car/train accident, prevailed with a 'no cause' verdict. He then returned home to Lansing, took his Bar exam, passed, and opened his law practice in East Lansing three days after being sworn in.

Since that time Mr. Williams has had over one hundred jury and non-jury trials, ranging from divorce cases to simple traffic trials, to, most commonly, criminal trials both on the District Court and Circuit Court level. However, over the past thirty two years, in criminal trials he has had seventy three (all but three before a jury) and has prevailed with not guilty verdicts in all but seventeen cases.

Mr. Williams believes that the client's wishes prevail in all matters that are ethically possible. He instills in each client the definition of the fiduciary duty owed by the attorney to the client, to wit: Honesty, fairness in dealing, full disclosure of all material information which comes to the attention of the attorney as quickly as possible, and acting in the best interests of the client.. and this means three things: short term best interests ("get me out of this situation as quickly, as cheaply, and as painlessly as possible"), long term best interests ("what effect will this choice be on the my life down the road?"), and financial best interests ("please protect my funds against unnecessary expenses during the court proceedings"), these among other costly poor choices often made under times of stress.

Usually it is a failure in negotiations to successfully resolve a criminal case at one or more pretrials or other conferences which eventually mandates the "all or nothing" nature of a conducting a trial on the facts of a case. Matters of law are most often handled beforehand by way of motions of one sort or another. Over the years we have found that rarely does a client try to run his or her own case. Most often the client relies on continued advice as to pros and cons of each decision. Rarely too in terms of statistics is a client completely innocent of the charges levied again him or her. As a defense attorney, I am usually are not the "champion of the totally innocent," but rather the "champion of the overly accused at best." Fortunately, guilt or innocence is not the prerogative of the defense attorney, rather it is to protect the client and afford him or her all of their rights in their defense. It is the task the People to do their job.. to prosecute who they perceive as the law breaker, and it is our job to take them to task on behalf of the accused.

It should be noted that the law is not just what is in the books as statutes and ordinances, and it is not just the wisdom of prior case decisions, or even the facts as presented in a case. More often than not in our common law jurisdictions -where equity (fairness based upon the wisdom of prior precedent decisions) softens the harshness of the black letter law, the "law" is what is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. Sometimes this is all that is present in lieu of 'guilty as charged,' so the attorney's ability to communicate very effectively is of paramount importance.