Lead Counsel independently verifies Child Pornography attorneys in Hazel Green by conferring with Alabama bar associations and conducting annual reviews to confirm that an attorney practices in their advertised practice areas and possesses a valid bar license for the appropriate jurisdictions.
If you have been accused of possessing or distributing child pornography, a skilled attorney can be crucial to the defense of your case. Penalties for possessing and/or distribution child pornography are steep and carry fines and prison sentences. Before taking other action, by contacting a Hazel Green attorney, you can potentially minimize any further risk to you.
Viewing, possessing, distributing or creating child pornography is illegal under both state and federal law. Child pornography is anything that depicts a person under 18 years old engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Child pornography can include pictures, videos and online content.
An attorney can often resolve your particular legal issue faster and better than trying to do it alone. A lawyer can help you navigate the legal system, while avoiding costly mistakes or procedural errors. You should seek out an attorney whose practice focuses on the area of law most relevant to your issue.
Prepare for your consultation by writing down notes of your understanding of the case, jot down questions and concerns for the attorney, and gather your documents. Remember that you are trying to get a sense of whether the attorney has your trust and can help you address your legal issues. Questions should include how the attorney intends to resolve your issue, how many years he/she has been practicing law and specifically practicing in your area, as well as how many cases similar to yours the attorney has handled. It can also be helpful to broach the subject of fees so that you understand the likely cost and structure of your representation by a specific attorney and/or legal team.
Personal jurisdiction – Requirement that a particular court have authority over a person, in order to bind that person to the judgment of the court, based on minimum contacts. International Shoe Co v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case outlining the scope of a state court’s reach in personal jurisdiction.