Summary: After being served by Strike 3 Holdings based on IP-address evidence, the case moves from anonymous ISP subpoena practice into standard federal copyright litigation. Strike 3 must prove that the named individual—not merely the internet connection—committed infringement.
TL;DR: If you were served by Strike 3 Holdings after your ISP released your information, you are now in active federal litigation and must respond within strict deadlines to avoid default judgment or losing strategic leverage.
Summary: What It Means to Be Named and Served by Strike 3 Holdings
If you were served by Strike 3 Holdings, your case has entered active federal litigation.
At this stage, the lawsuit is no longer anonymous, deadlines are running, and your decisions—whether to litigate or settle—carry real legal and financial consequences.
Strike 3 must now prove that you, not merely your internet connection, committed copyright infringement. That burden is real—but so are the risks of ignoring the process.
Once service occurs, strict federal deadlines apply.
What You Probably Did Before You Were Served
You may have received an ISP subpoena months ago, informing you that you were implicated as a John Doe Defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit alleging the download or distribution of copyrighted adult films.
After waiting—and after court approval to extend deadlines—Strike 3 filed a motion for leave to name and serve you as a defendant, which the court granted.
How This Case Reached the “Named and Served” Stage
If you want a step-by-step explanation of how Strike 3 obtained your identity from your ISP and moved from a John Doe case to naming you personally, we explain that process in detail here: → ISP Subpoena Notification Walkthrough.
The short version is this: once early discovery ended without a settlement or attorney involvement, Strike 3 exercised its procedural right to amend the complaint, name you, and serve you.
Why John Doe Defendants Lose Anonymity After ISP Subpoenas
Earlier in the case, Strike 3 obtained court approval to issue a subpoena to your ISP, requiring disclosure of the account holder associated with a specific IP address at specific dates and times.
If you did not retain counsel, object to the subpoena, or file a motion to quash, your ISP was legally obligated to comply. As a result, your name, address, and account information were provided to Strike 3 Holdings’ attorneys.
Once that happens, your anonymity ends:
Strike 3 assumes that the ISP account holder was the person “at the keyboard” when the alleged downloads occurred.
The case caption changes, and your name appears on the docket.
Who Is Jacqueline James and Why She Names Defendants in Strike 3 Cases
Jacqueline M. James (often called Jackie James) is one of the primary attorneys who files and prosecutes Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, now also in the District of Massachusetts. When Strike 3 first sues, it does not know the identity of the alleged infringer, so the lawsuit names a “John Doe” Defendant identified only by an IP address.
Once Strike 3 receives subscriber information from an ISP, Jacqueline James decides whether to convert the case from an anonymous John Doe lawsuit into a named defendant case.
If she does not hear from you or your attorney after the ISP subpoena is served—and after any court-approved extensions—she will typically move forward with naming and serving you. This decision is procedural, not personal.
What Changes Legally Once Strike 3 Names and Serves You?
Once Strike 3 Holdings names and serves you as a defendant, the case enters a fundamentally different legal phase.
Before service, the lawsuit was procedural and anonymous. After service, it becomes ordinary federal copyright litigation, governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Deadlines now matter, and inaction carries real consequences.
Strike 3 must now prove its claims against you personally, not just against an IP address.
Importantly, Strike 3 does not win automatically just because you were named and served.
As the plaintiff, Strike 3 bears the burden of proof. To prevail, it must show that it is more likely than not that you were the person who downloaded, streamed, or distributed its copyrighted works without authorization. (For more details about the burden of proof in cases asserting IP Address Evidence, see this article.)
An IP address alone does not establish identity. It establishes only that infringement allegedly occurred through an internet connection assigned to your account. The gap between those two facts is where most defenses live.
That said, once you are served, Strike 3 gains access to discovery tools—such as interrogatories, document requests, and depositions—that it can use to try to close that gap. This is why strategy matters more after service than before it.
Key Legal Consequences After Being Served in a Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit
Being named and served changes the playing field upon which you are operating. The status of who you are in relation to the lawsuit has been crystallized, and there are procedural rules governing what to do if you are going to be defending yourself in litigation.
And, while settlement may be proposed at any point in the litigation process, there is a small windows of time to settle the claims against you — after being served and before needing to file an answer with the court.
Key consequences after being served by Strike 3 Holdings include:
Litigate or Settle? The Defendant’s Fork in the Road
After being served, every defendant faces the same strategic decision: settle or litigate.
Settlement means negotiating a payment in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit and a release from future claims based on the same alleged conduct. Litigation means contesting liability and forcing Strike 3 to prove its case.
Neither option is inherently right or wrong.
One thing is certain: once you are served, doing nothing is no longer an option.
Settlement may make sense when:
The defendant knows they did the downloading;
The cost, stress, or exposure of litigation outweighs the settlement amount; or
Financial or personal circumstances make certainty preferable to risk.
Litigation may make sense when:
The defendant did not commit the alleged infringement;
There are multiple potential users of the internet connection;
Strike 3 lacks strong evidence beyond IP address attribution; or
The settlement demand is disproportionate or unrealistic.
What matters is that the decision is made intentionally, with an understanding of the legal terrain—not out of panic or inertia.
Settlement vs. Litigation in Strike 3 Holdings Cases (Side-by-Side Comparison)
Issue
Settlement
Litigation
Anonymity
Case dismissed before public trial
Name remains on court docket
Timeframe
Often resolved in weeks
Can last months or longer
Cost Predictability
Known, negotiated amount
Legal fees + litigation risk
Burden of Proof
Not tested
Strike 3 must prove its case
Discovery Exposure
Minimal to none
Depositions, interrogatories, possible forensic review
Risk Level
Lower, controlled
Higher, but defensible in the right cases
Best Fit For
Those seeking closure or certainty
Those disputing liability
Understanding which path makes sense requires understanding how Strike 3 actually tries to prove its cases—and where those efforts often fall short.
What Strike 3 Must Prove to Win Its Copyright Lawsuits (and What It Often Can’t)
What Strike 3 Must Prove
Why This Is Often Difficult
Ownership of a valid copyright
Plaintiffs sometimes rely on registrations that post-date alleged downloads or contain chain-of-title gaps
Actual copying of the work
BitTorrent logs show file fragments and IP activity—not completed downloads or viewing
That infringement occurred at your IP address
IP logs identify a connection, not a person
That you were the infringer
Multiple users, shared Wi-Fi, guests, roommates, family members, or unsecured networks create reasonable doubt
That the infringement was willful
Willfulness requires more than access—it requires intent
That damages are justified
Statutory damages are discretionary, not automatic
That Exhibit A proves liability
Prior alleged downloads are generally not admissible to prove conduct in the present case
This is where many Strike 3 cases either settle or quietly collapse. While IP-address evidence may be enough to initiate a lawsuit, it is rarely enough—by itself—to carry the case to judgment. Once discovery begins, the plaintiff must bridge the gap between an internet connection and a human actor. That gap is not small, and in many cases, it is never successfully crossed.
Why IP Address Evidence Alone Does Not Prove Identity
Federal courts have repeatedly recognized that an IP address identifies a subscriber, not a user. In households, dorms, apartments, and shared networks, attribution requires additional evidence. This distinction is why discovery—and not the subpoena stage—is where these cases are truly decided.
What actually matters when defending a Strike 3 lawsuit?
A. Identity (Who was at the keyboard?)
Legal defense strategies are straightforward in lawsuits like these. The copyright holder observed an IP address connecting to a peer-to-peer filesharing network where they observed someone downloading and sharing their copyrighted titles without a license. The copyright holder cannot see the identity of the person at the keyboard downloading their copyrighted content, so they make the conclusion that it must have been the ISP account holder.
The ISP turns around and shares a copy of the ISP subpoena to the intended customer, instructing him that he was accused of infringing the plaintiff’s copyrighted adult titles because they clicked on a link and ‘copied’ their titles without permission of the copyright owner, and unless they file a motion to quash with the court, they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena.
If the accused internet account holder did not do the downloads, then they are not responsible for the activities that happened on their internet account (or using their IP address) without their knowledge, authorization, or control.
Thus, the best legal defense strategy in one of these cases is simply informing the plaintiff that they did not do what they believe they did. Then, the plaintiff’s attorney will determine whether they will name and serve the defendant.
B. What Evidence Actually Matters in a Strike 3 Holdings Defense
The burden of proof to prove copyright infringement is on the plaintiff. The one who files the lawsuit must choose who to name and serve as a defendant, and then prove that it was this accused defendant who did the download. The burden of proof is low because these cases are ‘civil’ cases — meaning that the plaintiff is looking for money damages. These cases are not criminal cases, which would seek to put the defendant in jail or prison.
Thus, as a civil case for money damages only, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that it is “more likely than not the accused defendant” who downloaded, streamed, viewed, or copied their copyrighted titles without a license. “More likely than not” is roughly “more than 50%.” This is a very low bar for them to prove their case.
C. The Real Risks of Discovery and Depositions in Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits
The IP address evidence that the plaintiff uses to file the lawsuit is insufficient to prove that it was this defendant who downloaded their copyrighted titles.
After naming and serving the defendant, the plaintiff’s attorney will likely prove that it was more likely than not this accused defendant who downloaded their client’s copyrighted titles by obtaining testimony from the accused defendant. The law allows this before trial because this allows each side to get answers under oath early in the lawsuit so that each side can know what they still need to prove (if anything) to ‘win’ at trial.
Of the various discovery tools which are used to obtain evidence from a named defendant, a deposition, or an interrogatory are the most common.
A Deposition is where the defendant will show up at the plaintiff attorney’s office (or a designated location) to answer questions under oath. The plaintiff might ask them to also bring their laptop, their computers, and/or their phones so that they can have a digital forensics expert look for evidence that they have downloaded their copyrighted titles.
In the deposition, they will answer questions under oath. This is the same thing as giving testimony under oath. For example, the plaintiff’s attorney can ask, “Have you ever downloaded, streamed, or viewed adult films using online file sharing programs?”
Answering “yes” to that question provides the plaintiff with your testimony to prove that it is ‘more likely than not’ you who did the download of their copyrighted films.
Can I (or should I) introduce evidence in my defense during discovery?
This is obviously not legal advice. But in a copyright infringement lawsuit based merely on an IP address being observed doing something unlawful, this is usually an indication that without doing anything except complying with the procedural requirements of the case (e.g., filing an answer, attending the case management hearing, showing up to the deposition or answering questions under oath), the plaintiff likely does not have enough evidence to prove his case (without your testimony admitting guilt to the unlawful activities).
There are many cases where the “did I do it” question is easy to answer. But there are other situations where the answer is more murky, and maybe you made some missteps which would make it appear as if you were the downloader (e.g., you did try to download those titles, but the downloads never started or completed; or perhaps you did do the download, but you did it under one of the fair use categories which might serve as a defense to infringement).
Fair use is a legal doctrine found in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act that permits the limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright owner. This is one of many defenses to copyright infringement.
If you have one of these ‘murky’ circumstances, it here where you too can use the same tools of discovery as the plaintiff to mount your own defense (and to refute the plaintiff’s assertion that it was ‘more than not likely who who did the infringement’.
You can argue that you are aware of someone else who did the downloading without your knowledge or authorization.
You can argue that the plaintiff does not have the PCAP file to prove that the downloads actually happened (they can place you in the BitTorrent Swarm, but they cannot prove you actually downloaded enough of the file for your activity to be considered copyright infringement).
You can argue that the “Exhibit A” is not proof that you were at the keyboard when the downloads happened. This is not evidence to prove that you are not the downloader, but it could be used to show circumstantially that someone somewhere (perhaps a neighbor, or someone using your internet connection without your permission) was the one who downloaded their titles.
You can also obtain your own evidence from your ISP to prove that, e.g., (on specific dates and times the observed IP address was actually assigned to another account holder, or you can demonstrate that you were out of town when the downloading happened, etc.). Both of these examples could be considered as positive evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s assertion that you were the one at the keyboard when the downloading allegedly happened.
You can also argue that the complaint is conclusive and defective, because it is a illogical jump for them to claim that 1) they believe someone using an IP address assigned to the defendant’s account downloaded their copyrighted titles, and 2) thus, it must have been the ISP account holder who did the downloads. They need additional evidence to suggest that it was the ISP account holder and not someone else who did the downloading.
Obviously, making these arguments is something that an attorney should do when defending against these lawsuits.
If You Did Not Do The Downloading, then you could technically move through the lawsuit, answer the questions, and after the deposition, have your attorney file a motion for summary judgement. The reason for this is because after going through all of these motions, it is unlikely that the plaintiff’s attorney will be able to prove that it is “more than likely” you who did the downloading.
It is important to realize that in most cases, anything that you introduce as evidence in your defense might not be helpful regardless of whether 1) if you did not do the download, or 2) if you did the download.
If You Did Not Do The Download, then the plaintiff’s attorney — no matter what legal tool of discovery they use — they will not be able to prove that you were the downloader.
If You Did Do The Download, then you shouldn’t be in litigation; you should be Settling the claims against you instead.
Why should you avoid litigation if you did the downloading?
Because you know the plaintiff’s attorney will ask you questions under oath and you know they might also search your computers, your electronic devices, and your phones. Even without any evidence to be found by the digital forensics expert, if you will be admitting guilt in the deposition or in your answers, you probably just lost the case.
Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a company which files court cases in federal courts across the US. From observed litigation behavior, they appear to be reluctant to stop the infringement, but rather, to lurk on the online file sharing networks and write down the IP addresses of the internet users who are copying their copyrighted content without a license to solicit a settlement.
By tracking which internet users are repeatedly downloading their copyrighted adult films, they say that they are able to “build a pattern of infringement,” which they list in the “Exhibit A” of their complaints.
However, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), a plaintiff may not use past behaviors to prove that they did what they are being sued for in this lawsuit. This is referred to as inadmissible “Character Evidence.” Thus, their “Exhibit A” which contains the list of different dates and times that the ISP account holder allegedly downloaded their films is not there to prove guilt, but to multiply settlement numbers that they ask for.
Thus, while the common allegations in their lawsuits is that the John Doe Defendant infringed the copyrights that they ‘claim to have’ but often do not have (noting the “publication date” issue that we saw with Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits and also now here too), again, this copyright holder is merely looking to get as many high-priced settlements from each person they sue.
Why Are So Many Strike 3 Cases Filed in Massachusetts?
Based on observed filing patterns, Strike 3 Holdings has increased the number of cases filed in the District of Massachusetts. Court records do not state why particular districts are selected.
In general, plaintiffs may file copyright cases where alleged infringement occurred or where defendants reside. Filing patterns often reflect administrative efficiency, venue familiarity, or perceived litigation timelines—not necessarily any individual defendant’s circumstances.
The key takeaway for defendants is simple: regardless of venue, the legal standards are federal, the deadlines are strict, and the burden of proof remains on Strike 3.
[At the bottom of this page, I will provide a list of their current lawsuits. I will update this from time to time, as often as I can.]
Why did ignoring the ISP subpoena lead to being sued?
It was not irrational to ignore the initial ISP subpoena. At that stage, the lawsuit named only a “John Doe,” not you personally. Many subscribers reasonably assume that because they did not download the content themselves, they can wait to respond once formally sued.
But when no attorney contacts Strike 3 Holdings, its counsel—often Jacqueline James—has procedural authority to amend the complaint, name a defendant (usually the ISP account holder), and serve them. Once that happens, anonymity is gone, and the case becomes an ordinary federal lawsuit with strict deadlines.
The plaintiff’s attorney (Jacqueline James, or “Jackie James”) made the assumption that the ISP account holder was the one who infringed her client’s copyrights, even though she merely observed an IP address taking part in a BitTorrent Swarm. You are the account holder. You know you didn’t download their copyrighted titles.
Then there are often other factors — for example, if as the account holder, you did not do the downloading or you wished to defend the lawsuit in court. So you waited to be named and served so that you could file an answer in court.
SETTLEMENTS are all the plaintiffs appear to want at the “John Doe” phase of the lawsuit. If you did not do the do the download, then there is NO reason to settle.Maybe you did not do the downloading.
(There are also those who simply ignored the subpoena, threw them in the trash and ignored them without justification [oh well, can’t change the past], or who simply could not afford to hire an attorney or pay a settlement.)
What the named and served defendants did not expect, however, was Jacqueline James. Jackie James is a prominent attorney among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys, and she is consistent in how she approaches her cases. In other words, she will not dismiss a case just because a defendant asks nicely.
If you ignore her attempts to contact you, she will exercise her authority to name and serve you as a defendant (as you saw with your own case)…
Jacqueline James typically will name and serve you if her client does not receive a settlement from you in the “John Doe” phase of the lawsuit.
This is her right as an attorney for the plaintiff, and it is her duty in representing her client.
If You Did Not Do The Download, it is probably a good idea to hire an attorney [at a minimum] to let the plaintiff’s attorney Jacqueline James know that you did not do the download.
If You Did Do The Download, it also is probably a good idea to hire an attorney, especially now that you were forced into defending your case in court, and are looking at procedural deadlines to file an answer with the court (explained more in depth here).
You can still have an attorney negotiate a settlement with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, even if you are a student, and even if you cannot afford the settlement numbers they usually ask for.
Settlement amounts vary widely and depend on factors such as alleged title count, defendant resources, litigation posture, and timing. Publicly advertised “per-title” figures often omit this context and can be misleading.
Is it too late to settle after being named and served?
The “Summons in a Civil Action” that you received in your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe lawsuit requires you to file an answer with the court within 21 days of receiving the summons.
–That means that if you did do the downloading, you have strict federal deadlines to adhere to. To avoid these deadlines, you may retain an attorney now (before these deadlines come due) and negotiate a settlement.
Otherwise, you might be on a path which inevitably leads to you admitting guilt to copyright infringement.
Now obviously, failing to file an answer could mean that you might end up with a default judgement against you.
Failing to File An Answer means that you lost the lawsuit, and are likely on the hook for a judgement that will likely be the $150,000 statutory damages that the plaintiff asked for (read more about consequences of default, here). Yes, there are other judgement amounts as well based on whether you ‘intentionally’ downloaded the titles or ‘unintentionally’ downloaded them.
The point is that once you receive notice that you are a defendant in the lawsuit, please do not wait.Settlements should take roughly two weeks, and while we can do them in a much shorter period, you want to give your attorney as much time as possible to negotiate the settlement.
Why? Because settlement negotiations are not only about throwing price offers and counteroffers back and forth.
There is timing involved.
There are explanations to be made.
When you cannot afford the settlement numbers they will ask for, it might benefit you to use documentation to prove the settlement numbers we offer.
And sometimes, it is simply a good negotiating tactics to time your responses, and we need every day possible to maximize our leverage in our negotiations.
Practitioner Insight: Working with Jacqueline James in Strike 3 Litigation
Jacqueline M. James, Esq. (a.k.a. Jacqueline James, or “Jackie” James) is the attorney who filed the lawsuit against you. I have written quite a bit about her over the years, as Jackie James used to represent Malibu Media, another prolific copyright troll. Thus, what I write about her, I write from personal experience.
You should consider Jacqueline James as a formidable opponent. Not only is she skilled at maneuvering through the federal courts for her clients, but she is ethical to the rule. Before she ended her representation of her previous client — Malibu Media — they were asking their attorneys to do things which were unethical. Instead of doing something which would put her law license at risk, Jackie James stopped representing Malibu Media.
I was quiet about this when it happened, but my job as a defense attorney is to know my opponents — not only what strategies they employ in the courtroom, but it is important to know whether I can trust them or not when defending a client, or when asking them to ‘break a rule’ to allow one of my clients to get out of a lawsuit when the ‘law’ would ordinarily not let them go.
For example, I often take clients who are in terrible circumstances.
In one case, my client was a woman, but it was her husband who was doing the downloading of her client’s copyrighted videos. The problem is that the husband was unwilling to stop infringing their copyrights, and he was physically abusive towards his wife — the account holder, and my client.
I spoke to Jackie about the circumstances, and I explained that the infringements were not going to stop. I also explained that anything that happened to the husband, he would physically take out on his wife. Jackie and I arranged a modest settlement that she could pay so that she could get out of the lawsuit, and I helped this woman get help to separate herself from her abusive husband.
So while I have represented clients against her many times over the years, even though we differ as to whether copyright holders should be using the federal courts “as a sword, rather than a shield,” she is still a formidable attorney to be taken seriously.
Next Steps If You Have Been Named and Served by Strike 3 Holdings
YES, you should have an attorney representing you in these lawsuits.
YES, you should have an attorney negotiate a settlement on your behalf.
Deciding to represent yourself “pro se” is allowed, but you do not know the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) which guide an attorney in knowing what the other side is allowed to do, and what they are not allowed to do.
Potential consequences of not having legal representation is simply that you are unequipped with the legal skills needed to navigate through the lawsuit.
You might miss a deadline and lose your case, or you might agree to terms which an attorney would edit out of their boilerplate agreements.
You also might not have the leverage an attorney might have, as most attorneys have negotiated thousands of contracts, releases, and settlement agreements over their legal career.
Thus, we are able to spot when a settlement agreement has a change edited into it, or when some term looks different from what the settlement terms should look like.
We also know how and when to ask for a change in the terms (in a way that the other side will agree to the changes).
Lastly, we know the order of when someone is bound to an agreement, because doing things out of order might get you dismissed from a lawsuit, but…
If and when they sue you again and they ask when did you sign the agreement, and when did you process the settlement payment, doing it out of order could nullify or invalidate your agreement even if both parties sign the agreement.
All of these examples thus far are relevant for settlements. But in Litigation:
An attorney knows how to calculate deadlines, and we know what deadlines are our deadlines and which deadlines are their deadlines. Knowing these dates are important in your defense, because if a plaintiff’s attorney misses a deadline, it might be a better idea to let that mistake kill the case (obviously depending on the magistrate judge and his / her ruling) rather than to continue fighting your side of who did (or did not do) what. A skilled attorney would see this error and would know to sit back and do nothing, and when to mention it to the court.
Lastly, an attorney should know:
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Federal Rules of Evidence, AND
the local rules of the court in which the lawsuit is filed.
Judges often have their own rules as well, and violating those rules can cost you a win you otherwise deserve.
This is a lot to navigate when you are a skilled attorney. For a non-attorney, you might not even be aware that these rules exist.
In conclusion, if I have done things correctly in writing this article, I have put this article in front of you right after you were named and served in your Massachusetts District Court lawsuit.
If you were named and served in another federal court, e.g., the New York Southern District Court, or the Texas Southern District, or even the California Southern District Court, of course this information is useful for you as well.
(I just wrote this article when I saw that Jackie James was serving so many of the older Massachusetts cases who did not settle).
I wrote this article with the hope of giving you a plain and simple explanation of the various considerations you should have if and when you are named and served in your lawsuit. And no, Jacqueline James is not the only Strike 3 Holdings attorney out there. There is Lincoln Bandlow, John Atkin, along with ~10 other characters, each of whom have their own skillsets, their own set of proclivities, and risk levels when deciding how to approach them.
With Jacqueline James, you see now that she names and serves defendants who do not approach her after receiving the subpoena from their ISP. She waits for an attorney to contact her, and if nobody contacts her, then she names and serves her defendants.
Lastly, there are times when an attorney licensed to practice in your state is a must, and there are times where another attorney who has extensive experience with your plaintiff’s attorney could yield a significantly better result than someone who is just trying to navigate the federal rules in a copyright infringement case.
On a personal note, I want your business only if I can help you. If you speak with me on the phone, I will ask you questions that are personal and possibly uncomfortable, but I am asking you with the intention of finding out methods and strategies that will work for your particular situation and with your personal financial circumstances in mind.
Sometimes a settlement is NOT the right answer for a client.Just because a person did the downloading does NOT mean that they should settle. There are so many angles that I help those who speak with me see that I’ll help them and share information even if it causes them not to retain me as their attorney.
I hope this article was helpful, and please feel free to message me if you have any questions or comments about what I have written.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION: Again, if you have been implicated as being the “John Doe” Defendant in a lawsuit, 1. and 2. (below) are the TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form. The attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me. However, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or in any e-mail.
