Case Study

Background

Rosenblum Law successfully represented a client involved in a contentious roommate dispute that escalated into a legal confrontation. The client faced a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by a male roommate, alleging domestic violence. The roommate claimed the client was the aggressor during an incident, which led to the issuance of the TRO and additional charges of simple assault.

Challenges

The TRO was issued following a physical altercation, where the roommate alleged that the client had assaulted him. Despite evidence of self-defense and injuries sustained by the client, the police initially sided with the roommate due to visible scratch marks on his face. The client, significantly smaller in stature, faced an uphill battle in proving innocence, especially as the TRO threatened severe personal and legal repercussions.

Legal Strategy

1. Evidence Collection and Analysis:
   • We gathered comprehensive evidence, including video footage from the apartment, medical reports of the client’s injuries, and testimonies from witnesses and other residents who had experienced similar behavior from the roommate.
   • Our team meticulously analyzed all evidence to build a robust defense, focusing on disproving the allegations of aggression and highlighting the client’s defensive actions.
2. Court Representation and Defense:
   • During the court proceedings, we emphasized the client’s defensive posture during the incident. The video evidence showed the roommate’s aggressive behavior and the client’s attempts to de-escalate the situation.
   • We demonstrated inconsistencies in the roommate’s testimony and the police report, which had failed to accurately document the client’s injuries.
3. Negotiation and Resolution:
   • Our attorneys sought to negotiate with the opposing party, exploring options like civil restraints to mutually agree on no contact without a formal restraining order. This approach aimed to resolve the situation amicably and avoid further legal entanglement.

Outcome

The court dismissed the TRO against our client, finding insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of aggression. The judge recognized that the client had acted in self-defense and that the accusations did not meet the legal criteria for a permanent restraining order. As a result, our client was able to avoid the negative consequences of a final restraining order, such as restrictions on personal freedoms and potential criminal record implications.

Conclusion

This case underscores Rosenblum Law’s dedication to defending clients’ rights and ensuring fair treatment in the legal system. Our thorough preparation and strategic defense secured a just outcome, allowing our client to move forward without the burden of an unjust legal ruling. We remain committed to providing exceptional legal representation and support to our clients in their most challenging times.