Naval Submarine Base New London, commonly called Groton, sits on the eastern bank of the Thames River in southeastern Connecticut. It is the oldest submarine base in the United States and remains the center of the Navy’s undersea warfare community. The installation runs along more than six miles of waterfront, with piers, training facilities, and schools that support the Atlantic submarine fleet.
Groton is home to the Submarine Learning Center, Naval Submarine School, and multiple operational units assigned to Submarine Squadron 4 and Submarine Squadron 12. Nearly every submariner in the Atlantic Fleet begins or passes through training here, whether for basic instruction, nuclear power qualification, or advanced tactical courses. The base’s proximity to General Dynamics Electric Boat, one of the Navy’s primary submarine builders, creates a continuous link between training, maintenance, and fleet readiness.
The surrounding area reflects a mix of Navy tradition and New England character. Groton and neighboring New London are coastal towns with deep maritime roots, modest downtowns, and long-standing ties to the military. The local economy is heavily tied to the submarine force and defense contracting, creating a blend of military discipline and small-town familiarity.
Groton’s location adds another dimension. Positioned between Boston and New York, it sits within easy reach of major federal agencies and civilian courts, making coordination between military and civilian jurisdictions common. Civilian arrests in the area often trigger simultaneous command investigations, and overlapping authority can complicate how cases develop.
Naval Submarine Base New London has a dedicated Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) despite being a smaller installation. The OSTC reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy and is staffed by Special Trial Counsel, elite prosecutors with exclusive authority to evaluate serious allegations. Their task is to determine, without command involvement, whether evidence supports referral to court-martial.
The OSTC prosecutes “covered offenses,” including Articles 117a, 118, 119, 119a, 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, 125, 128b, 130, 132, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These statutes address offenses such as murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and the wrongful distribution of intimate images.
Your Connecticut Option When Hiring an Attorney
Geography alone is not the best reason to hire a lawyer. Skill, experience, and professional fit matter far more. But it just so happens that one of the nation’s leading UCMJ defense firms has an office close by, in Hartford. Our attorneys have represented Sailors and Coast Guard members at Groton and the USCG Academy for two decades.
One of us grew up in this area, attended every level of education here, through law school, and has raised a family here. We understand the local environment not only as attorneys but as lifelong residents.
Since beginning civilian practice in 2006, we have handled a steady flow of Navy cases at Groton and around the world, ranging from drug allegations to child abuse, sexual assault, CSAM, officer misconduct, and every other kind of case.
With OSTC now operating on base, the most serious cases are managed and prosecuted from within the installation itself. The OSTC brings a level of specialization that changes how cases are charged and tried. When the prosecution’s resources increase, the defense needs to counter with experience. Experience with the OSTC process, its personnel, and its standards is essential.
Our firm focuses on that kind of work: the complex, high-level UCMJ cases handled by the OSTC. We have been doing it since long before the OSTC concept came into being and continue to defend service members across the country and overseas. The proximity of our Hartford office to New London makes it easy for us to appear in person when needed, while still providing national-level representation. For service members stationed here, that combination of local presence and national trial experience offers the best of both worlds: direct access, proven skill, and a defense team that knows Connecticut and Groton as well as it knows the courtroom.
Q: Why don’t most law firms post their fees online?
Because it would end too many conversations before they start. The cost of good legal representation can be steep, and most visitors would click away. So firms hold the number back until they’ve built a little rapport. They want you on the phone first, where they can read your psychological profile and sense of urgency before naming a price.
Q: Why push for that first call?
Because it’s not really about the facts of your case; it’s about learning you. That first call is where they size up what kind of pressure you’re under, what you can afford, and how hesitant you might be when cost finally comes up. The conversation is the setup for the money question.
Q: How is that information used against me?
Once they know your rank, years in service, and benefits, they can roughly calculate your pay and what you stand to lose. Housing allowance, healthcare, retirement eligibility, and education benefits all become part of the pitch. It’s about leverage and finding your vulnerabilities.
Q: Is that legal.
Yes. And technically within the boundaries of ethics. The risk of losing a career or freedom really does justify a serious fee. The problem isn’t the math, it’s the setup. The structure of the conversation is designed to persuade through emotion first and sense second.
Q: Why are firms so secretive about prices?
Hourly billing hides the true cost because it can spiral without a limit. $500 an hour is enough for sticker shock, but that’s just the access point. A retainer of $5,000 at that hourly rate can evaporate quickly, and it doesn’t long to realize what will happen if the client can’t afford to “refresh” the retainer. The attorney will withdraw, abandoning the client at the point of greatest need.
Flat-fee firms try to stay vague too. They do it partly to protect flexibility. Once they publish a number, they can’t charge different clients different prices for the same work. They also do it so they won’t get undercut by their competitors.
Q: Then why do you list your prices?
Because it’s better for everyone if money is straightforward. A call that ends the moment cost is mentioned doesn’t help anyone. Posting our fees filters that out early. It lets serious callers focus on the work, not the surprise.
Q: Do you ever adjust fees based on rank or income?
No. That kind of arithmetic (calculating how much a person can be squeezed) has nothing to do with how we practice. In two decades of consultations, we’ve never treated fear as a tool for persuasion. Anyone under the UCMJ already knows what’s at stake. Our job is to defend our clients, and starting that relationship with manipulation is a bad idea.
Q: Why do some firms charge for consultations?
Some firms charge a consultation fee as a filter. They’ll often credit that amount toward the total fee if they’re hired, but the point isn’t generosity. It’s screening.
Most people who call civilian law firms can’t afford to hire them, and charging for the meeting weeds out callers who aren’t likely to retain counsel. Firms can get swamped with calls from unqualified shoppers, or people looking for help with issues the law firm doesn’t cover, so this is really a time management strategy for these firms.
It’s worth noting that firms charging for consultations rarely publish their fees and often use the same sales tactics noted on this page once they have a “qualified” prospect on the phone.
We consider consultation fees ethical, but we don’t use them. Our goal is to help people understand their situation, not test whether they can pay for a conversation.
Q: What’s your policy on disclosing cost?
Clarity is a form of respect. When the cost is known from the start, the rest of the conversation can stay where it belongs: on the facts, the strategy, and the trust that has to exist between lawyer and client.
Like most firms in this area of law, we bill separately for each stage of the case. Most cases don’t get beyond the “initial” or “investigative” stage. We charge a flat fee of $6,500 for that stage. If the case requires an Article 32 hearing, we usually charge between $10,000 and $12,000 for that stage. And if the case goes to trial, our usual trial fee is $25,000.
Based on reports we get, we believe the market rates for those stages tend to be
$4,500 to $8,000: Initial stage
$8,000 to $20,000: Article 32 stage
$15,000 to over $100,000: Trial stage
Q: Why do legal fees vary so much between firms?
Every firm sets its own structure and priorities. Some charge significantly more for the same type of case.
Another trick some firms use: They quote a “flat” trial fee but limit the number of days it covers, usually three, then add daily or hourly charges if the trial runs longer than that, which ultimately increases the bill by many thousands of dollars the client didn’t prepare for. Some firms also bill for travel time, too, so every hour spent in the car or on a plane is added to the invoice, often charging a premium for overseas cases.
We take a different approach. When we quote a fee, it covers the full stage of representation. Travel days are included, even when we go overseas. We don’t adjust a fee upward if the trial runs long or travel gets delayed. The only separate costs are direct travel expenses such as flights, lodging, and rental car.
If You Have a CSAM Case, You Need to Know These Things
Where These Cases Begin
Most CSAM cases start with a CyberTipline report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Federal law requires companies like Facebook, Google, and Snapchat to report suspected CSAM found on their platforms. NCMEC reviews each report, prioritizes it, and forwards it to law enforcement, usually with a short description of the content and the IP address tied to the account.
Other cases come from computer technicians, witnesses who see images on a suspect’s device, or police who find contraband files during unrelated investigations such as child sexual assault cases or drug cases.
Why Possession Is Treated So Seriously
Even without direct contact between the accused and a victim, possession is not viewed as victimless. Every image or video documents an actual act of abuse, and each viewing renews that harm.
Possession also fuels the demand that drives production. In the darker corners of the internet, abusers and distributors operate like closed clubs, exchanging or selling access to material. Members sometimes pay or use cryptocurrency to request what they want to see. For prosecutors, every download or exchange represents continued participation in that system of exploitation, even if the accused was an end-user and not directly involved in the production of the files.
Devices Commonly Seized
Investigators seize every device that can store or display files: computers, external drives, SD cards, phones, tablets, cameras, and gaming systems. Network devices such as routers and smart TVs can also be imaged when they contain cached data or links to cloud storage. Anything with memory or connectivity is subject to forensic review until cleared.
How Investigators Link an IP Address to a Suspect
Once law enforcement receives a CyberTip, they issue subpoenas to identify the subscriber behind the IP address and obtain warrants to seize devices or cloud data. Because IP addresses change frequently, speed is critical. Investigators act quickly to preserve evidence before data disappears or is erased.
How the Government Proves Possession
Finding illegal files on a device is not enough. Prosecutors must prove the accused knowingly possessed them, meaning they had both control and awareness. Investigators look for user activity, search terms, and communications that show intent or knowledge. They trace who used the device, review related emails and photos, and analyze file paths and software to connect the accused directly to the data.
How to Defend a CSAM Case
Defense begins by testing the government’s proof of knowledge and control. The presence of CSAM on a device does not prove the accused knew it was there or meant to keep it. The first task is to determine who had access to the computer or phone, whether the files were saved intentionally or through automatic processes, and whether the accused tried to delete or report them once discovered.
Search warrants, imaging procedures, and chain-of-custody records must be checked line by line. Even small errors in those steps can weaken the government’s case. The defense also reviews whether investigators relied too heavily on NCMEC summaries without independent verification or exceeded the limits of their warrants.
Knowledge is the core issue. Were the files visible and clearly labeled, or buried in obscure directories? Were names descriptive or random? Was there any sign of concealment or deliberate organization? Each answer helps define whether the government can prove knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Expert Consultation and Testimony
Digital forensics specialists are essential. They can show whether the material was ever opened, whether timestamps were altered, or whether malware or remote-access tools planted files without the user’s intent. Forensic psychologists can assess cognitive or emotional factors relevant to intent and sentencing. Together they provide the technical and human context that determines both guilt and mitigation.
Keeping Victim Evidence in Its Proper Place
NCMEC files often include police reports, interviews, and victim-impact statements from the original abuse cases. These materials are powerful, but they are hearsay and usually irrelevant to possession charges. The accused has no connection to those original crimes.
Defense counsel should move early to exclude such materials. Doing so limits sentencing arguments to the facts actually at issue (what was found, when, and by whom) rather than the emotional gravity of unrelated offenses. That distinction is crucial to keeping the trial focused on evidence, and not convict or punish the accused for crimes committed by someone else. In guilty-plea cases, the deal will typically include a waiver of hearsay objections, so the NCMEC material can be used during the sentencing proceeding.
The NCIS Interrogation Technique in 110 Words
Every interrogation follows a standard script. The agents pretend to know everything. Then they offer a way out, some smaller, relatable version of guilt that seems more sympathetic. In sexual assault cases, one of the oldest tricks is the “just the tip” setup; it sounds like an escape hatch, but under Article 120 “the tip” meets the full definition of penetration and equals a rape confession. The smart move is the one that ends the conversation before it begins: insist on talking to a lawyer and stop talking. Once you do that, the interview must stop. But if you start again, anything you say is a gift to the prosecution.
Talk to a Civilian Military Lawyer for Free
Send us a form or call one of our attorneys at 800-319-3134 if you’re under investigation, facing UCMJ action, or need representation at an AdSep board. We defend Sailors worldwide, including Groton, so use our expertise and familiarity with the region to regain control of your situation.