Criminal Defense Practice

Here at Gross & Romanick we're proud of our reputation as an experienced Northern Virginia & Fairfax Virginia criminal defense law firm. Gross & Romanick is led by managing partner Edward Gross, who has practiced criminal defense law in Virginia since 1980. Our Criminal Practice is managed by partner Jeffrey S. Romanick, a skilled trial lawyer who appears in Court on a daily basis. We represent clients in DWI, DUI, reckless driving or other traffic offenses as well as clients charged with assault, drug offenses, computer crimes or other criminal charges. We represent clients in General District Court, Circuit Court and Juvenile Court in Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William and Northern Virginia.

To speak to one of our criminal defense lawyers, call us today at 703-273-1400 or fill out our Online Information Request Form.

The Statute of Frauds

Based on its name you might think that the Statute of Frauds has something to do with criminal or civil fraud, but it doesn't. The name "Statute of Frauds" actually refers to a law passed by the British Parliament in 1677, and the name has been retained through the centuries. It specifies which kinds of contracts must be in writing in order to be enforceable. Its purpose is to prevent the setting up of supposed agreements and then supporting them by perjury.

The most common applications of the Statute of Frauds are as follows:

* Holding a person responsible for the promise to pay the debt of another Contracts for the sale of real estate Leases for real estate over 1 year Agreements which cannot be performed within 1 year Sale of personal property over $5,000 Sale of goods over $500, unless the buyer accepts the goods
* Agency agreements

While the Statute requires a written agreement, almost any writing sufficient to indicate some kind of agreement between the parties will suffice. However, the "writing" must be signed by the party who is being charged. Thus, the venerable Statute of Frauds is still an important and influential part of modern law.

***

For more information about contract law or to consult with one of Gross & Romanick's lawyers, contact us by calling 703-273-1400 or by filling out our online Information Request form.

DWI In Virginia

Dealing with a DWI or DUI charge in Virginia can be traumatic. That's why you need the support of a reputable law firm like Gross and Romanick. In this short video, Gross & Romanick attorney Jeff Romanick talks about the DWI process in Virginia. Take a look:

ASAP Pre-court Evaluation

The Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) was established by the Virginia legislature to provide alcohol courses and programs for persons convicted of a DWI (Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated). As a condition of probation and to obtain a restricted license, a person convicted of a DWI must enter into and successfully complete ASAP. Although a court may decline to order participation in ASAP if the assessment by ASAP indicates that intervention is not appropriate for such person, it almost never happens in the Northern Virginia courts. Nevertheless, a pre-court evaluation by ASAP can be a valuable tool in certain cases.

While an ASAP evaluation normally takes place after a conviction of a DWI, Fairfax ASAP offers a pre-court evaluation service. Someone who is charged with a DWI and who took a blood or breath test indicating a high level of alcohol may wish to obtain a pre-court evaluation. In cases of high blood alcohol levels a judge may require an ASAP evaluation before issuing a restricted license. A pre-court evaluation which indicates that the accused does not have a serious alcohol problem and will not be a danger on the road may enable this person to obtain a restricted license at the first court hearing. Since an ASAP evaluation in Fairfax County can take 6 weeks or more to obtain, a pre-court evaluation may save a person from a substantial period of time without a driver's license.

An appointment for a pre-court evaluation must be made at least several weeks prior to the court date. The evaluation interview is conducted in a group setting and takes approximately three hours. The pre-court evaluation report contains a demographic statement, offense history, alcohol and drug history, recommendations for program requirements and a risk assessment. A copy of the pre-court evaluation report is sent to the court, the defendant's attorney and the client.

Although a good evaluation can be very helpful, a bad report can be devastating to the attempt to obtain a positive result in court. Because the report generally contains information about the drinking behavior of the accused on the day of the charge, a decision to obtain the pre-court evaluation should be made in consultation with an experienced DWI lawyer. This lawyer can also advise the client on how to properly conduct oneself during the interview.

***

The above is not meant to replace legal counsel. If you'd like to speak to one of the attorneys at Gross & Romanick, call the firm directly at 703-273-1400 or fill out their online information request form.

Construction Law: Performance Bonds

Companies in the construction industry should understand performance bonds. Performance bonds differ in many ways from payment bonds. While payment bonds are designed to assure compensation to subcontractors and suppliers, performance bonds seek to secure completion of the project or award of damages to the owner for default by the general contractor.

Performance Bonds Defined

The parties to a performance bond consist of the following: (1) the principal (usually the general contractor), (2) the obligee (the owner), and (3) the surety. In some cases, a performance bond is required of a subcontractor, in which case the principal is the subcontractor and the obligee is the general contractor. Performance bonds are primarily designed to afford significant protection to the owner, while subcontractors and suppliers typically have no rights under such bonds.

Claims are brought by the obligee, when the principal has defaulted on its contract with the obligee - the obligee declares the principal to be in default and notifies the surety. Only then is surety required to act, since premature actions by the surety can result in litigation with the principal.

Actions upon Default

In the event of default by the principal, the surety has several options. It can permit the owner to finish the project and compensate the owner for damages. Or, the surety can finish the project through a new contractor. Or, it can finance the general contractor so the defaulting obligee can complete the contract. The choice depends upon the situation and the players.

Statute of Limitations

While the federal Miller Act states no specific time period within which suit must be brought against a surety, there are federal, state and local time limitations applicable to performance bonds. Virginia Code Section 11-59 requires actions against sureties on performance bonds be filed within one year after completion of the contract, including the expiration of all warranties and guarantees. If the action is for a breach of warranty or defect, then all cases must be filed within one year of discovery of the defect or breach of warranty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, individuals in the construction industry should keep in mind that the rules and principles, which govern the operation of these bonds, are sometimes peculiar to the bonds themselves and the statutes under which they are provided. Therefore, it is important to have a good understanding of the terms of your bond, any applicable statutes, your contract and the facts.

This brief article is only meant to provide a very broad overview of the complex area involving payment bonds and cannot be relied upon as a substitute for legal advise. Contact Gross & Romanick by filling out out online form, emailing us at law@gross.com, or calling (703) 273-1400 if you need information about your specific situation.

DWI In Virginia: Another Satisfied Client

Recently, a client facing a driving with suspended license charge contacted Gross & Romanick. This client faced jail or even possible steep fines, but due to Gross & Romanick's professional representation a more favorable outcome was reached. Even thought the license was suspended due to a prior DWI, the client only lost his license for 30 days but did not go to jail and did not pay a fine. The client then contacted the firm after court to thank both Mr. Edward Gross and his partner, Jeffrey Romanick, "for all of your help". He said that he "really appreciates everything you did for me."

If you face DUI or DWI charges in Virginia, contact Gross & Romanick today. We'll vigorously defend and protect your rights.