For base-specific information, including local command culture and regional legal issues, please visit our individual installation pages.
Experience in the Smallest and Most Overlooked Branch of Military Justice
We handle more Coast Guard courts-martial and administrative cases than any civilian firm we know of. The Coast Guard doesn’t produce the same volume of prosecutions as the other branches, which means few lawyers ever gain meaningful experience inside its system. We’ve done it for nearly two decades. That experience gives us an edge that can’t be taught or borrowed.
In a legal community this small, presence and reputation are crucial. When you’ve been trying Coast Guard cases year after year, the names stop changing. The trial counsel you faced five years ago is now with the Office of the Special Trial Counsel. The lieutenant you defended in Alameda might be a legal officer in Norfolk today. Judges rotate, but the network remains. We’ve built a reputation within that network for competence, credibility, and discretion, the qualities that carry real weight when decisions are made.
The Coast Guard’s system isn’t as large or well known as the others, but its legal officers are sharp, and its commitment to fairness runs deep. That consistency makes it one of the most disciplined corners of military justice.
Our Coast Guard cases have taken us from Norfolk to New Orleans, from Cleveland to Alameda, and from Kodiak to Miami. We’ve represented service members from cutters, stations, and sectors across the country: New London, Charleston, San Diego, Seattle, and beyond. The geography is broad, but the community isn’t. If you’ve been charged, investigated, or referred to court-martial under the UCMJ, chances are good that we already know the system and the people handling your case.
A History of Active-Duty and UCMJ Defense Work
We entered the Air Force JAG Corps in 2001, in the months following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. From that moment forward, our careers have revolved around one mission: defending the men and women who serve. Between 2001 and 2005, we were active-duty trial lawyers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: standing in courtrooms across the country, trying cases back-to-back, and learning the craft the only way it can be learned: by doing it. We never rotated into policy, staff, or advisory billets. Ours was a courtroom education from the start, and it never stopped.
When we left active duty, we carried that same mission into civilian life. We built this firm for one purpose: to keep defending military members and to keep trying cases that matter. Since then, we’ve represented service members from every branch in courts-martial worldwide, covering charges under Articles 120, 120b, 134, 133, 119b, 121, 132, and AWOL cases of every kind.
Even during the pandemic, when most of the world went remote, we didn’t. We tried general courts-martial in hangars and converted gymnasiums, masked and distanced but still in person. The work never paused, and neither did we.
Our Coast Guard Experience
Other firms claim Coast Guard experience by listing every base they can find. Ours comes from actual trials and clients. The commands below reflect real work and relationships built over years inside this small but capable legal community.
Coast Guard Installations
- Coast Guard Headquarters (CGHQ)
- U.S. Coast Guard Academy (New London)
- Sector Detroit, Sector Cleveland, Base Alameda, Base Kodiak
- Sector San Diego, Sector Miami, Sector Boston, Base Norfolk
- Sector Portsmouth, Sector New Orleans
Drink From the Fire Hose: Win Your Article 120 Case
Every Article 120 case begins the same way: emotion first, evidence second. Memory is not a video; it’s a reconstruction built from fragments, emotion, and suggestion. Trauma, alcohol, and repetition reshape that memory until the story feels certain, even when it isn’t. A confident witness can still be wrong. The defense lawyer’s task is to teach the panel that emotion is not proof and that sympathy, unchecked, is the enemy of reason.
Inside the courtroom, logic and science are the counterweights to fear. Confirmation bias makes investigators and prosecutors see what they expect; hindsight bias turns ordinary behavior into “red flags.” The only cure is methodical execution: patient cross-examination that exposes contradictions without spectacle. Jurors trust restraint more than combat. A good cross isn’t a brawl; it’s a slow unveiling that lets the witness undo their own story. Silence, used well, asks the hardest questions.
Alcohol and memory are their own battlefield. Blackouts mean amnesia, not unconsciousness, and fragmented recall fills itself with imaginary (confabulated) detail. In those cases, the defense doesn’t fight emotion; it replaces it with physiology. A logical, sober explanation always beats moral outrage. Every “he said/she said” case is winnable, and losable.
The mistake-of-fact defense is the law’s acknowledgment that misunderstanding can be honest. Consent must exist at every stage, but remember that the law measures “reasonableness” through a sober lens, not through intoxication. Mutual drinking doesn’t equal shared blame. Continuing sexual intimacy after visible confusion or sickness is never reasonable; go home. These boundaries are where law, ethics, and judgment meet and where experience matters most.
Child-related cases demand an entirely different mindset. Jurors’ protective instincts surge; the defense attorney becomes a behavioral study in composure. Never confront. Never quarrel. Challenge falsehoods with patience and evidence, not friction. In the courtroom, anger discredits and calmness persuades. The goal is fairness, not applause.
Mind your situational awareness: all eyes are on the defense, all the time. Every gesture, every tone either earns or forfeits credibility. For your attorney, experience parenting, mentoring, or simply communicating across age levels helps bridge those gaps. Objectivity is oxygen. Lose it, and you lose the room.
Finally, timing and diplomacy with OSTC decide as much as skill at trial. Early engagement creates leverage and opportunities. Present exculpatory material before referral; waiting for court is a losing move. OSTC values clarity and credibility in a defense attorney. The modern defense lawyer wins by understanding what the system really wants: justice, not destruction.
Articles 117a and 120c of the UCMJ
Both articles address non-contact sexual misconduct tied to privacy or digital media. Article 120c covers acts such as indecent exposure, voyeurism, or recording someone without consent. Article 117a applies when intimate images or videos are shared or posted without permission, even if the material was originally created consensually.
Consent and Distribution
Article 120c punishes recordings or images made without consent; Article 117a punishes those shared without consent. Either can lead to confinement, discharge, and long-term registration requirements.
Unsolicited Images
Sending an explicit photo to another person without invitation can qualify as indecent exposure under Article 120c. The law treats an unwanted digital image the same as a public act of exposure intended to offend.
Consensual Recordings Shared With Non-Participants
When a private video made by mutual agreement is later shown or forwarded without permission, it becomes a violation of Article 117a. Consent to create the recording does not equal consent to share it.
Images Already Online
Prior publication may affect intent but doesn’t erase liability. The issue is whether you knowingly re-shared or displayed material that the subject never consented to release. Forensic timelines often determine that answer.
Sex-Offender Registration
Convictions under Articles 117a or 120c are generally treated as sex-offense equivalents by civilian authorities. Registration can last a lifetime and carries serious personal and professional consequences.
How These Cases Are Proven
In addition to the accuser’s testimony, investigators rely on metadata, device extractions, cloud backups, and chat logs.
Severity of Punishment
Nuclear. A conviction under either of these articles will end a career, likely lead to confinement, with a punitive discharge, and sex offender registration.
Protecting Your Devices
Never surrender a phone or consent to a search without first consulting counsel. Use a PIN, not Face ID. You have a right to refuse to reveal your PIN, so don’t let CGIS agents bluff it out of you. Also, devices can hold exculpatory data, and once agents seize them, control over that information is lost; back up your devices to a secure, password-protected source.
The Role of Intent
Under Article 120, intent to humiliate can elevate hazing or pranks into sexual offenses. Under 117a and 120c, no additional motive is needed; the acts themselves are inherently invasive.
Sexual Intent Is Not Required
Prosecutors need only prove that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that their conduct violated another’s privacy or dignity. Sexual desire is irrelevant.
Free Case Evaluation
Don’t wait until the panel is seated to prepare. If you’re facing any UCMJ allegation you need help. Call 800-319-3134 for a private consultation with attorneys who’ve tried these cases across every branch, including the Coast Guard.