Speeding ticket question

Last week I got a speeding ticket. I was also cited because the address on my registration did not match that on my license. The back of the ticket says the fine for speeding is $300 and the incorrect address is $190, although if I correct the address within 30 days that can be dropped. When I called the number on the back of the ticket it said the fines were $190 for speeding and $115 for the address.

As most locals can tell you, attorneys can easily get the fines knocked down significantly, and eliminate any points. I hear they plea it down to a parking ticket. There are billboards all over the city advertising this service. I went to Ticket Wackers for mine. They charged me $80. I got the impression that was all I would likely have to pay, assuming I sent in my updated registration after I received it.

My question is, why do the courts in Vegas incentivize using an attorney? I understand why they would accept a lower amount if I accept a settlement, thus not wasting the courts time. But how and why is at attorney able to help on such a routine violation? I plan to write a blog entry about this, so would like to understand what is really going on. I asked the secretary at Ticket Wackers these questions, but she said "I have no idea."

Wizard,

I am not a Vegas resident, nor an attorney, but merely a poor law student (financially and performance-wise). I know in Florida, where I live, it is simply a massive saving of judicial resources. Generally the ticket law firms can go before a judge (whom they all become acquainted with) with a massive amount of tickets- and aggregately settle them, saving the court time and money. I think there is a trade-off with settling these due to the increase in fines, though I have no idea how grand the trade-off actually is in practice.

The Judges (in my belief) probably prefer dealing with attorneys, and can thus save themselves much headache by not having to hear 400 people ramble their stories each day in traffic court. I think that is part of the incentive as well.

Thanks. What makes that explanation hard to accept entirely is that if you call the phone number on the back of the ticket you go through an automated menu that lets to settle the matter for lesser amounts that stated on the ticket. So there is already a working process in place to reward bad drivers to not fight the ticket. There are similar processes in California and Washington (where I have also had tickets) but I don't think an attorney would have been able to help in routine cases in those states.

Well in that case, I'm stumped. Maybe if you settle via the automated system, it will still add points, and push up against your violation limit. Perhaps the attorney can avoid this.

I do know from experience that less than 10 over a limit of 55+ in Nevada is a non-moving violation. My fine was nowhere near as bad, something like $67 for nine over. This was in one of the depopulated counties, not Clark, so maybe they have some kind of surcharge there.

If it isn't a big ticket you probably didn't need a lawyer. Generally, just asking the prosecuting attorney (nicely!) for a guilty plea to a lesser offense will work. You may have to pay the same fine or even a higher fine, but it stays off your record. If he doesn't agree ask the judge for a continuance (if he asks why, say you need time to prepare a defense, which is the truth), then hire a lawyer.

The system of hiring a lawyer is part professional courtesy, part racket (not just in NV, everywhere). All the judges and prosecutors used to be be lawyers, so by favoring people who have counsel they're helping their profession out and providing a slight fringe benefit to others in the profession. (I understand lawyers who get tickets play the game too, hiring other lawyers if their own shop doesn't handle traffic cases.) For those ticketed, it's still a better outcome than mailing the ticket in.

There's nothing morally wrong with exercising your rights. Plea bargains happen all the time in criminal cases; very few people get the maximum penalty possible. A fine is still an incentive not to do it again, even if your record stays clean.

The system is based on incentives given to people to reduce the number of trials held. Trials generally cost far more than the face value of a traffic ticket. The process has become streamlined but it is based on historical precedent and study.

If the only options were to pay the full amount or go to trial, the system would become massively overburdened, forcing the justice system to throw out many tickets or run all the trials and incur massive losses.

I got my only large traffic ticket a few years back in Toronto, Canada. After recieving it, I read online that the system was overwhelmed and you had a very good chance of getting on a trial list and having it simply thrown out if you went to the office and declared your inention to go to trial. I did exactly that. What followed was a mandatory meeting with the prosecutor, who offered me progressively better incentives to plead guilty on the spot. I eventually settled for 20 percent of the face value of the ticket just so I did not have to come back. I think I did better than most who probably cave at the early offers of reduced or removed demerit points but still a hefty fine.

Here's the key: Lawyers fully know the system and are given better deals immediately. They will not cave at a lessor offer like many individuals will. Further, they are far more likely to hold out for a trial and use expense-incurring stall tactics, and the departments know this. They know that even completely holding out for a trial is still an okay option as the cop will often not show up (another cost reason - this is usually billed as overtime pay for the cop). That's if the case ever makes it to trial, which many tickets do not as the justice department must thin out the queue and simply throws some cases out.

Like almost anything, this is all simple economics at play.

Quote: pocketaces

Here's the key: Lawyers fully know the system and are given better deals immediately. They will not cave at a lessor offer like many individuals will. Further, they are far more likely to hold out for a trial and use expense-incurring stall tactics, and the departments know this.

That is pretty much it.

A letter to a creditor from a debtor's lawyer carries more weight than the exact same letter from the debtor himself.

Often the main advantage is that the lawyer knows where the court house is located. He knows how to get to the head of the line while others simply wait for their case to be called. He looks like a lawyer, acts like a lawyer and will be treated like a lawyer. So its often worth it to hire a lawyer for even a routine act that you yourself can accomplish.

A person can be so mentally impaired that he is legally unable to enter into a commercial contract, yet he might still have the mental capacity to make a will. You don't full mental capacity to make a will and you don't need a lawyer to make a will, but even someone of very modest means should go to a lawyer for a will.

Quote: 7outlineaway

The system of hiring a lawyer is part professional courtesy, part racket (not just in NV, everywhere). All the judges and prosecutors used to be be lawyers, so by favoring people who have counsel they're helping their profession out and providing a slight fringe benefit to others in the profession.

Ding, ding, ding!

I think we have the correct answer!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Ding, ding, ding!

I think we have the correct answer!

That was the kind of answer I was looking for too. I'm still going to try to confirm that.

The 'professional courtesy' idea, while a wee bit too far in the conspiracy realm of things, probably does has some effect in some instances. But a big thing that might refute that a bit is that a lot of the agents in many traffic courts aren't even lawyers. In many jurisdications, these agents are paralegals who have little in common with the judges and prosecutors that went to law school. In fact, they are very likely generally given little respect as a professional by their far more educated counterparts. But the high success rates of these agents are prevalent across these jurisdictions as well.

I really believe knowledge of the system and the best process to obtain a desired result is key. A paralegal or lawyer has it, joe schmo does not. Prosecutors are fully aware of this.

This information discrepency subject has actually been openly talked about in law circles. Many jurisdictions have attempted to remove the advantage a lawyer has in small claims court to some success, by turning them more into "people's courts" like on television. However in traffic court where technicalities, negotiation and playing the system is key, a lawyer or agent that knows the system intimately will always have an advantage.

Here's a detailed article that emphasizes the information discrepancy I speak of: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/can-a-lawyer-beat-your-traffic-ticket--1.aspx