Lawyer cashes in on Cyber Monday frenzy

November 29, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When I think of Cyber Monday, I think of scoring great deals and free shipping on clothes, shoes, electronics and maybe household items. But one California attorney jumped on the Cyber Monday bandwagon to offer discounted criminal defense for drunk driving.

The first three people who contacted LA attorney Matthew Spiegel Monday would be eligible for the rate. Those with felony charges need not call: Spiegel only offered the promotion to misdemeanor DUIs.

In a release, the attorney said he normally charges $5,000 to $10,000 to represent a drunk driver, depending on the circumstances. He figured he’d help out the (first three) people of Southern California who may be down on their luck and unable to afford an attorney. He pointed out that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is one of the biggest drinking days of the year for Americans.

Spiegel claims he’s the first to offer this kind of promotion on Cyber Monday.

What do you think about Spiegel’s offer? Is this a good idea for drumming up business? Would you slash your rates more than 90 percent for Black Friday or Cyber Monday?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT