Thomas Tomko | Macomb County Criminal Lawyer

Lawyer.com Member Questionnaire

Please describe a case(s) in the last year or two where you made a big difference.
License Restoration 2016: Restored license after Secretary of State DENIAL at a Review Hearing. Appeal to Circuit Court REVERSED and restored Driver License because I the Secretary of State abused their discretion when it denied relief at the Review Hearing. Criminal Case 2016: Client charged with Possession and Intent to Deliver. Charges DISMISSED after motion and hearing where it was shown that the police violated the 4th Amdnement, stopping the client and searching without proper cause Criminal Case 2015: Client charged with 2nd Degree Murder. Another person was responsible and Client broke up the fight. This charge was DISMISSED after motion and hearing where the Prosecutor claimed that the Client was an accessory, but we showed that the Client was breaking things up and had no intent to injure anyone. Criminal Case 2014: Client charged with Felony Kidnapping in connection with other charges. This charge was DISMISSED pursuant to Motion of Attorney Thomas J. Tomko based on the Statute of Limitations. The case involved allegations which were over ten years old. The applicable Statute of Limitations provided that charges must be brought within ten years of the incident, otherwise the charges are subject to dismissal. Despite the age of the incident, the charges were still filed but had to be dismissed based on Motion.

Criminal Case 2013: Client was charged with OWI based on allegations that Defendant was operating a vehicle with presence of marijuana in his system and that that marijuana substantially and materially affected his driving. Based on Michigan Court of Appeals cases, evidence presented by the Prosecutor was inadmissible. For evidence to be admissible, it has to show results of a valid test for marijuana which indicates the level of active THC in the Defendant's system at the time that he was driving. A test showing that Defendant had the residue of THC in his system (e.g. metabolites) was not admissible to show presence. Case DISMISSED by Motion.

How did you build a successful practice?
Over the course of 20 years of running my own office, I have successfully represented over 3,000 persons in different matters. These include: traffic tickets, Reckless Driving, Careless Driving, Drunk Driving Cases, OWI DUI, DWLS, Possession, Use of Cocaine, Delivery Maufacture of Marijuana, A&B, Domestic Violence, Larceny, Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm, AGBH, Possession of a Firearm, Felony Firearm, Armed Robbery, Medical Marijuana violations, Armed Robbery, CSC, Conspiracy, and many other charges. These clients build confidence, experience, and referrals. At the same time, representation builds reputation with Prosecutors, Judges, Police, and other officials. This confidence, experience, and reputation help get clients to predictable results which are within their range of acceptability. This experience is the predictable success which I offer to my clients at the Law Office of Thomas J. Tomko.

What should clients look for in a lawyer?
If you are charged with an offense or crime, you should look for an attorney who is experienced with criminal cases. You should also look for an attorney that you are comfortable with. You need to be able to work with the attorney's office, pay agreed fees and be comfortable with the approach of the attorney.

How important is local knowledge to the success of your cases?
It is critically important for your attorney to know the environment of the Court. This environment is different from Court to Court. Judges can be dramatically different. One key to effective representation is knowing the Court and helping the Client know what to expect. Success is measured by meeting the client's expectations. Predictability creates expectations. With 29 years of experience, the Law Office of Thomas J. Tomko can make your results predictable.

What information can you provide in a free phone consultation?
Information provided in a telephone consultation is always general. After all, not everything is know about a case from a phone call, and there are too many risks of making a bad decision based on a short phone consultation. The first advice in every criminal case is DO NOT MAKE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY PRESENT. The best specific advice in a phone conversation is for the client is to make an office appointment with the goal of hire someone who is experienced in the area of law they need help with and who they are comfortable with. A review of the case may show that there was a bad stop, an inadmissible test, a bad confession, or some other defense. This is often not apparent on the phone and needs to be investigated. In short, you should call the Law Office of Thomas J. Tomko or another attorney, get some general information on the phone, and then make an appointment so that you can begin putting together your defense strategy.

What information do you need in a free phone consultation?
In a phone conversation, you should be prepared to provide your name, address, phone number, place where the incident occurred, name and phone number of any witnesses, and the date and time for the next court date. This basic information allows the attorney to assess the urgency of the matter and to determine how quickly a response is needed to best represent you. It is important for your to be honest and for the call to be confidential. If calling from jail, specifics CANNOT be discussed. These recorded calls are recorded and can come into the possession of the Prosecutor. The best solution is to arrange an office meeting to discuss the particulars of your case with Thomas J. Tomko.

What differentiates you from other lawyers in your community?
As an attorney for over 27 years, I work hard to get you to your goals. I am not afraid to take a case to trial, file the difficult motion, or to go the extra distance in your case. If needed, your case can go to the Court of Appeals when a decision is inappropriately made against you. The experience that I have gained over the past years will allow me to best predict what I believe will occur in your case. Other offices may be reluctant to have a trial or to take an unpopular position. The Law Offices of Thomas J. Tomko will put your goals first and take all reasonable steps to defend your rights.

What is the most rewarding aspect of your job?
The most rewarding aspect of being an attorney is to know that a difference was made in the over 3,000 persons that I have represented over the past 20 years. In some cases, the result saved points on a driving record. In other cases, a person preserved their driving privileges. In still other cases, jail was avoided or minimized. Some persons were able to keep criminal charges off their record or to get a felony reduced to a misdemeanor. I have had the privilege of being the attorney for persons who got charges reduced to what was appropriate, so that they were not over-charged. I have helped clients get a fair sentence, and to avoid an overly harsh sentence. In short, the seccuss of the clients at the Law Offices of Thomas J. Tomko is the most rewarding part of this practice.

• MCBA Member
  MCBA Juvenile Committee Chairman
  Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) 1992 to present
  Former MAACS Roster Attorney

• 2012 to Present - Juvenile Law Committee Chairman MCBA
  2013 Michigan Super Lawyer
  2012 CDAM Spotlight on: Thomas J. Tomko
  2011 MCBA Pro Bono Award - Senior Citizens

• People v xxxxxx, May 2015: Romeo DWLS - (Reduce zero Points); Clinton Twp DWLS (Reduce zero points); Royal Oak Exp Lic (Reduce zero points) People v Holloway, 16th Circuit, DISMISS CSC 1, CSC 4, CSC 4, Convicted of CSC 2 (reducing sentence by 21 years!) May 2015 People v Oneal, 16th Circuit, Murder 2 DISMISSED on Motion to Quash Bind-Over, March 2015 In Re Mignot, 16th Circuit Juvenile Neglect Case = REVERSED by Court of Appeals, 2015 People v Loftis, 16th Circuit, Felony Charges of Kidnapping and Wrongful Imprisonment = DISMISSED 2014 by Motion in District Court (Roseville) People v Hendricks, 16th Circuit Court - Charge: Felony Possession = DISMISSED 2013 after Trial People v Bischoff, Clinton Township (41-B District Court) 2013 OWI DISMISSED on Motion, prosecutor evidence NOT admissible People v Colin Green, 16th Circuit OWI Causing Death (15 year felony) = DISMISSED 2012 at Trial - showing marijuana not the cause of an accident (Convicted of Neg Hom, a 2-yr misdemeanor) 2012

• "Michigan Supreme Court Rejects the 'One Parent Doctrine' (Overturns In Re CR)"  Bar Briefs, August 2014
  "A Preliminary Hearing in a Juvenile Neglect and Abuse Case" Bar Briefs, January 2013
  

Thomas J. Tomko has been a Premium Member since May 18, 2015.
Lawyers with longer memberships tend to have more experience so we use the Membership date to help prioritize lawyer listings on search pages.

Above credentials have been verified independently by Lawyer.com.

As a service to our visitors and members, Lawyer.com displays the credentials for Premium Lawyer Profiles which Lawyer.com has independently verified. These are displayed at the at the 'Verified Credentials' table. Lawyer.com independently verifies these credentials when a lawyer signs up for a Premium Lawyer Profile. Each Premium Profile lawyer also certifies that they are licensed to practice as an attorney in their state, that they are in good standing with their applicable bar, and that they will notify Lawyer.com if this changes while they have an active profile.

• Thomas J. Tomko Lawyer.com
• Thomas J. Tomko

Michigan Supreme Court Rejects "One-Parent Doctrine" (Overturns In Re CR)  (2014-08-01 18:40:09)
Discussion of June 2014 Supreme Court Case which rejects as unconstitutional former law in Neglect and Abuse cases. Applies to Parents charged with Abuse and Neglect, and who may be charged criminally.