Our firm focuses on the client's journey and how they find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  We lead with empathy and understanding; our clients are not criminals but rather good-hearted, caring individuals who respect the law and want to be held in high regard. We work with a diverse pool of clients; our clients are our partners, and together we put forth a proactive approach to every case.

As a criminologist and defense attorney, I research and study why good people make bad choices and sometimes end up on the wrong side of the law. This understanding informs the journey my clients take. Through both my research and practice, we explore how they arrived at this point, uncovering the triggers, pressures, or circumstances that led to their situation. Armed with this insight, we apply a proactive approach and a growth mindset, helping clients not only navigate their legal challenges but emerge from the experience stronger and better prepared for the future.

While I am a former NYC and Michigan prosecutor, and have been practicing criminal defense for more than a decade, I don't like using the "criminal" label with my clients. My clients don’t have anything to hide; they are more frightened, embarrassed, and worried about an uncertain future. They are concerned that they made a terrible "first impression" with the police, prosecutor, judge, and court system. It can be gut-wrenching to feel "stuck"—you can’t change what happened, and sitting around worrying only makes things worse.

My goal is to empower each client to make a "true impression," understanding how they ended up in their situation and equipping them with tools to *show* rather than *tell* what they’ve learned and where they’re headed. Nothing feels better as an attorney than hearing a prosecutor and judge praise my client for stepping up and taking control of their own situation.

I view my role as both an attorney and a coach for my client. Coaching is the art of facilitating another person's learning, development, well-being, and performance—which, as an attorney, is my client. Coaching raises self-awareness and identifies choices. Through coaching, my clients find their own solutions, develop their own skills, and change their attitudes and behaviors while tackling a challenging moment in life. The whole aim of coaching is to close the gap between people's potential and their current state, helping them use their case as a moment of reflection and growth.

My clients thrive in the criminal justice system because they are mere visitors; having the right exit strategy is the key to navigating the most challenging moment of your life. You only get to handle your case once—how do you want to approach it?  ​

---

​Below, we explore various criminological theories that explain why good people sometimes make bad choices. Each theory sheds light on human behavior and helps us better understand how individuals, like our clients, find themselves in difficult situations.  One, many or none of these may apply to your case, but we will work together to best understand how we ended up in this situation together. 

​​Routine Activity Theory
Origin and Key Contributors:

Routine Activity Theory was developed by criminologists Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson in their seminal 1979 paper, "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach." The theory posits that crime occurs when three elements converge in time and space:
​

1. A motivated offender
2. A suitable target
3. The absence of a capable guardian

Key Research:
Cohen and Felson argued that post-World War II social changes, such as increased workforce participation and suburbanization, left homes unattended during the day, increasing opportunities for crime. They emphasized that crime is not just about offenders but also about situational factors and opportunities.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Drunk Driving: The lack of alternatives (e.g., no designated driver or public transportation) combined with a motivated offender (someone intoxicated but willing to take the risk) creates the opportunity for drunk driving.
• Shoplifting: When store security is lax, and the individual perceives no immediate guardian, they may act impulsively to steal.

​
Criticism and Evolution:
While widely used in crime prevention strategies, critics argue it oversimplifies crime causation by ignoring offender motivations, socio-economic factors, and systemic issues. Still, it remains a cornerstone of situational crime prevention research.

Social Learning Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:

​Social Learning Theory was popularized by Albert Bandura in his 1977 book, "Social Learning Theory." While Bandura’s work focused broadly on psychology, Ronald Akers applied these principles to criminology. Akers, building on Edwin Sutherland's Differential Association Theory, argued that individuals learn criminal behavior through observation, imitation, and reinforcement within their social environment.

Key Research:
Akers identified four key processes:

1. Differential Association: Interaction with others who model deviant behavior.
2. Definitions: Attitudes or justifications that normalize crime.
3. Differential Reinforcement: Rewards or punishments for criminal actions.
4. Imitation: Observing and replicating others' actions.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Domestic Violence: An individual raised in a home where violence was normalized may learn to use aggression as a conflict resolution method.
• Resisting Arrest: Peer influence can encourage distrust or antagonism toward law enforcement.

Criticism and Practical Use:
Critics argue that the theory does not fully explain spontaneous crimes. However, it has been instrumental in shaping rehabilitation programs, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, which seeks to change learned patterns of behavior.

Self-Control Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:
Self-Control Theory was developed by Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in their 1990 book, "A General Theory of Crime." The theory posits that low self-control, established in childhood due to poor parenting, is the primary cause of criminal behavior.

Key Research:
Gottfredson and Hirschi identified key characteristics of individuals with low self-control, including impulsivity, a preference for immediate gratification, and an inability to foresee long-term consequences. They argued that self-control is largely set by age 10 and remains stable throughout life.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Drunk Driving: A lack of impulse control leads an intoxicated individual to ignore the dangers of driving under the influence.
• Malicious Destruction of Property: Acting out in anger without considering the repercussions.

Criticism and Evolution:
While the theory has broad applicability, critics argue it overemphasizes individual traits and underestimates social and environmental influences. More recent studies have explored how self-control can be strengthened through interventions.

Labeling Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:
Labeling Theory, rooted in symbolic interactionism, was developed by Howard Becker in his 1963 book, "Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance." Becker expanded on earlier work by Edwin Lemert, who distinguished between primary deviance (initial rule-breaking) and secondary deviance (deviance resulting from societal reactions and labels).

Key Research:
The theory argues that being labeled as a “criminal” or “deviant” can lead individuals to internalize this identity, perpetuating further deviance. Societal reactions, such as stigmatization, create a self-fulfilling prophecy where individuals conform to the expectations of the label.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Probation Violations: A person labeled as unreliable may feel discouraged from trying to meet expectations.
• Resisting Arrest: Fear of being permanently labeled as a criminal can lead to defensive actions during an encounter with law enforcement.
• A Subsequent DUI Arrest: An offender who has previously been charged with drunk driving may not have been willing to make changes on the first case and repeat the same behavior. 

​
Criticism and Expansion:
Critics argue that Labeling Theory places too much emphasis on societal reactions and not enough on personal agency or pre-existing motivations. However, it remains influential in advocating for rehabilitation over punitive measures, aligning with our proactive approach.

Social Bond Theory
​
Origin and Key Contributors:
Social Bond Theory was developed by Travis Hirschi in his 1969 book, "Causes of Delinquency." The theory suggests that strong social bonds to family, school, and community reduce the likelihood of criminal behavior.

Key Research:
Hirschi identified four elements of social bonds that deter crime:

1. Attachment: Emotional ties to others.
2. Commitment: Investment in conventional activities.
3. Involvement: Participation in non-deviant activities.
4. Belief: Acceptance of societal norms and laws.

Weaknesses in any of these bonds increase the risk of criminal behavior.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Drug Possession: Weak family or community ties can leave individuals vulnerable to substance abuse.
• Reckless Driving: Thrill-seeking may replace meaningful involvement in conventional activities.

Criticism and Relevance:
Critics argue that the theory oversimplifies crime causation by focusing exclusively on social bonds. However, it provides a framework for addressing a clients’ support systems and encouraging them to strengthen these ties.
​
Behavioral Economics

Origin and Key Contributors:
Behavioral Economics combines insights from psychology and economics to explore why individuals make seemingly irrational decisions. Key contributors include Daniel Kahneman (author of Thinking, Fast and Slow) and Amos Tversky, whose research into cognitive biases like loss aversion and overconfidence earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002.

Key Research:
Behavioral economics highlights cognitive biases that influence decision-making, including:

1. Loss Aversion: Fear of loss drives risk-taking behavior.
2. Overconfidence Bias: Overestimating one’s ability or judgment.
3. Present Bias: Prioritizing immediate gratification over long-term benefits.
4. Availability Heuristic: Basing decisions on recent or vivid experiences.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Drunk Driving: Overconfidence in one's ability to drive safely while intoxicated stems from poor risk assessment.
• Reckless Driving: Present bias can lead to impulsive actions like speeding, prioritizing immediate time savings over safety.

Criticism and Practical Use:
Critics argue that behavioral economics doesn’t fully explain habitual or systemic behaviors. However, its focus on decision-making errors makes it highly relevant for understanding impulsive or risky crimes. Discussing these biases can help a client reflect on their actions and prevent future mistakes.

Peer Influence and Social Norms Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:
This theory stems from social psychology and the work of Solomon Asch (1951) on conformity and Stanley Milgram (1963) on obedience to authority. It highlights how behavior is shaped by social norms and peer influences.

Key Research:
Key findings include:

1. Conformity: People are more likely to engage in deviant behavior if it aligns with group norms.
2. Obedience: Authority figures or peer leaders can compel individuals to act against their own moral code.
3. Group Polarization: Group dynamics intensify risky behavior.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Possession of Drugs: Peer pressure or normalization of drug use within a social circle can lead to substance possession or use.
• Reckless Driving: Showing off for friends can escalate risk-taking behind the wheel.

​
Criticism and Practical Use:
Critics argue that this theory doesn’t explain solitary crimes. However, it is critical for addressing crimes influenced by social pressures, especially for younger clients or those in tight-knit communities.

Strain Theory
Origin and Key Contributors:
​
Strain Theory was introduced by Robert K. Merton in his 1938 essay, "Social Structure and Anomie." Merton expanded on Emile Durkheim's concept of anomie (normlessness) by explaining how societal pressure to achieve cultural goals (e.g., financial success) leads individuals to adopt deviant means when legitimate avenues are blocked.
​
Key Research:
Merton identified five modes of adaptation to strain:

1. Conformity: Accepting cultural goals and legitimate means.
2. Innovation: Accepting goals but using illegitimate means (e.g., crime).
3. Ritualism: Rejecting goals but adhering to norms.
4. Retreatism: Rejecting both goals and norms (e.g., substance abuse).
5. Rebellion: Rejecting and replacing societal goals and norms.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Embezzlement: An individual under financial strain who feels unable to achieve financial stability through legitimate means may innovate by stealing from their employer.
• Drug Possession: A person facing emotional or social strain may retreat into drug use to escape their challenges.

​
Criticism and Expansion:
Later scholars like Robert Agnew expanded Merton’s theory to include emotional and social strains, introducing General Strain Theory in the 1990s. Critics argue that Merton’s original theory is overly focused on material success and fails to account for cultural and individual variations.

Rational Choice Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:
Rational Choice Theory originates from classical criminology, particularly the work of Cesare Beccaria (On Crimes and Punishments, 1764) and Jeremy Bentham (utilitarian philosophy). In the 20th century, Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke modernized it for criminology in their 1986 book, "The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending."

Key Research:
Cornish and Clarke argued that offenders make rational decisions by weighing the costs and benefits of committing a crime. This decision-making process is influenced by:

1. Perceived Risk: Likelihood of getting caught.
2. Perceived Reward: Potential gain from the crime.
3. Opportunity: Ease or difficulty of committing the crime.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Careless Driving: A person might rationalize speeding because they believe the benefit of arriving on time outweighs the risk of getting a ticket.
• Leaving the Scene of an Accident: An individual may calculate that fleeing is less costly than facing immediate legal or financial consequences.

​
Criticism and Adaptations:
Critics argue that the theory overlooks emotional, impulsive, or irrational decision-making. Nevertheless, it forms the basis for crime prevention strategies like situational crime prevention.

Neutralization Theory

Origin and Key Contributors:
Neutralization Theory was introduced by Gresham Sykes and David Matza in their 1957 article, "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency." The theory explores how individuals temporarily suspend their moral values to justify deviant actions. Sykes and Matza argued that this process allows otherwise law-abiding individuals to commit crimes without seeing themselves as criminals.

Key Research:
Sykes and Matza identified five primary techniques of neutralization:

1. Denial of Responsibility: Blaming external factors for one’s actions.
2. Denial of Injury: Minimizing the harm caused by the crime.
3. Denial of the Victim: Claiming the victim deserved it.
4. Condemnation of the Condemners: Criticizing those who disapprove of the behavior.
5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties: Justifying actions as serving a greater good.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Reckless Driving: A person may rationalize speeding by saying, “I wasn’t hurting anyone.”
• Probation Violations: Justifying missing an alcohol test with, “My boss wouldn’t let me leave work, or I woke up late.”

​
Criticism and Practical Use:
Neutralization Theory has been criticized for not explaining why certain individuals use these techniques while others do not. Despite this, it remains a powerful tool for understanding how clients view their actions and helping them reflect on their choices.

(1) The Power to Make a True Impression

(2) Challenge the Status Quo

(3) Transformative Change - Shift to Change 

(4) Transformative leadership without authority

(5) Moral Power is the Key to Freedom

(6) Individualized Consideration

(7) Motivating and Inspiring

(8) Focusing on the Big Picture

(9) Emerging from Crisis

(10) Stimulating Environment 

(11) Commitment to Deep Change

(12) Reflecting with Discipline

(13) Finding your Purpose

(14) Authenticity and Integrity

(15) Leading with Empathy and Trust

(16) Keeping an Open Mind to the World

(17) Flipping the Script on the Power Brokers

(18) Influence with your voice

(19) Finding Purpose and eploying it for Good

(20) Bringing it all Together with Purpose

Moral Disengagement

Origin and Key Contributors:
Albert Bandura, a prominent psychologist, introduced the concept of Moral Disengagement in the 1990s as part of his broader research on social-cognitive theory. Bandura argued that individuals use cognitive mechanisms to rationalize behavior that conflicts with their moral values.

Key Research:
Bandura identified several mechanisms of moral disengagement:

1. Moral Justification: Framing harmful behavior as serving a greater purpose.
2. Euphemistic Labeling: Using language to downplay the severity of actions.
3. Advantageous Comparison: Comparing one’s actions to worse behaviors.
4. Displacement of Responsibility: Shifting blame to authority figures or circumstances.
5. Diffusion of Responsibility: Sharing blame with others.
6. Disregard for Consequences: Minimizing the harm caused.
7. Dehumanization: Viewing victims as less deserving of empathy.

Application to Criminal Cases:

• Assault: Justifying violent actions as self-defense or retaliation.
• Malicious Destruction of Property: Rationalizing vandalism as a form of protest or expression.

​
Criticism and Use:
While moral disengagement is a psychological theory, its principles have been applied in criminology to understand white-collar crime, violence, and other offenses. It’s particularly relevant in helping clients recognize and challenge the thought processes behind their actions.