Stephanie handle a case for me 15 years ago. She came to visit me at the jail and advised me to accept a plea. I was looking at 57 years and I was an angry man. Had been victimized by the system and told her I wanted to go to trial. I eventually took a deal. She was always in contact and I walked away with 3.5 years. I recently spoke with her again and she was very pleasant and helpful. I would recommend her to others.

Stephanie Meade was appointed to my criminal case by the Office of Court Appointed counsel. There are many reasons I would NOT recommend this attorney. When I originally spoke to her regarding the likely outcomes of my case, she had said going to trial would not be a good idea unless I had something that would "impeach" the testimony of the other individual involved in my case. The issue is I later found out that even though Stephanie Meade claims to have "done a lot of work on my case" that she didn't even find out that the individual she was referring to was arrested nine days later in connection to a burglary relating to methamphetamine use. This information took me fifteen minutes to find from a library computer- so how much work could she have really done? The Arizona Supreme Court rules state an attorney is supposed to diligently defend their clients. She clearly did not. When I explained why a specific Tucson Police officer violated my Miranda rights, she told me that throws out my confession yet did not go to the judge to have the confession thrown out. This does not seem like a diligent defense to me. Also, I sent a fax asking a specific question in regards to a specific law since it may have given me a defense to my charges, and never even got one phone call to answer my question regarding the question in my fax. It was not until I was pleading to the charge a month later that she even addressed my question. I asked her why none of my calls we're returned and her response was "your not my only client". As far as I know she never interviewed any of the police officers or dug in to the reasons why my case and specific points were not properly documented by the police who investigated the circumstances that day.

Stephanie handle a case for me 15 years ago. She came to visit me at the jail and advised me to accept a plea. I was looking at 57 years and I was an angry man. Had been victimized by the system and told her I wanted to go to trial. I eventually took a deal. She was always in contact and I walked away with 3.5 years. I recently spoke with her again and she was very pleasant and helpful. I would recommend her to others.

Stephanie Meade was appointed to my criminal case by the Office of Court Appointed counsel. There are many reasons I would NOT recommend this attorney. When I originally spoke to her regarding the likely outcomes of my case, she had said going to trial would not be a good idea unless I had something that would "impeach" the testimony of the other individual involved in my case. The issue is I later found out that even though Stephanie Meade claims to have "done a lot of work on my case" that she didn't even find out that the individual she was referring to was arrested nine days later in connection to a burglary relating to methamphetamine use. This information took me fifteen minutes to find from a library computer- so how much work could she have really done? The Arizona Supreme Court rules state an attorney is supposed to diligently defend their clients. She clearly did not. When I explained why a specific Tucson Police officer violated my Miranda rights, she told me that throws out my confession yet did not go to the judge to have the confession thrown out. This does not seem like a diligent defense to me. Also, I sent a fax asking a specific question in regards to a specific law since it may have given me a defense to my charges, and never even got one phone call to answer my question regarding the question in my fax. It was not until I was pleading to the charge a month later that she even addressed my question. I asked her why none of my calls we're returned and her response was "your not my only client". As far as I know she never interviewed any of the police officers or dug in to the reasons why my case and specific points were not properly documented by the police who investigated the circumstances that day.

Stephanie handle a case for me 15 years ago. She came to visit me at the jail and advised me to accept a plea. I was looking at 57 years and I was an angry man. Had been victimized by the system and told her I wanted to go to trial. I eventually took a deal. She was always in contact and I walked away with 3.5 years. I recently spoke with her again and she was very pleasant and helpful. I would recommend her to others.

Stephanie Meade was appointed to my criminal case by the Office of Court Appointed counsel. There are many reasons I would NOT recommend this attorney. When I originally spoke to her regarding the likely outcomes of my case, she had said going to trial would not be a good idea unless I had something that would "impeach" the testimony of the other individual involved in my case. The issue is I later found out that even though Stephanie Meade claims to have "done a lot of work on my case" that she didn't even find out that the individual she was referring to was arrested nine days later in connection to a burglary relating to methamphetamine use. This information took me fifteen minutes to find from a library computer- so how much work could she have really done? The Arizona Supreme Court rules state an attorney is supposed to diligently defend their clients. She clearly did not. When I explained why a specific Tucson Police officer violated my Miranda rights, she told me that throws out my confession yet did not go to the judge to have the confession thrown out. This does not seem like a diligent defense to me. Also, I sent a fax asking a specific question in regards to a specific law since it may have given me a defense to my charges, and never even got one phone call to answer my question regarding the question in my fax. It was not until I was pleading to the charge a month later that she even addressed my question. I asked her why none of my calls we're returned and her response was "your not my only client". As far as I know she never interviewed any of the police officers or dug in to the reasons why my case and specific points were not properly documented by the police who investigated the circumstances that day.

Stephanie handle a case for me 15 years ago. She came to visit me at the jail and advised me to accept a plea. I was looking at 57 years and I was an angry man. Had been victimized by the system and told her I wanted to go to trial. I eventually took a deal. She was always in contact and I walked away with 3.5 years. I recently spoke with her again and she was very pleasant and helpful. I would recommend her to others.

Stephanie Meade was appointed to my criminal case by the Office of Court Appointed counsel. There are many reasons I would NOT recommend this attorney. When I originally spoke to her regarding the likely outcomes of my case, she had said going to trial would not be a good idea unless I had something that would "impeach" the testimony of the other individual involved in my case. The issue is I later found out that even though Stephanie Meade claims to have "done a lot of work on my case" that she didn't even find out that the individual she was referring to was arrested nine days later in connection to a burglary relating to methamphetamine use. This information took me fifteen minutes to find from a library computer- so how much work could she have really done? The Arizona Supreme Court rules state an attorney is supposed to diligently defend their clients. She clearly did not. When I explained why a specific Tucson Police officer violated my Miranda rights, she told me that throws out my confession yet did not go to the judge to have the confession thrown out. This does not seem like a diligent defense to me. Also, I sent a fax asking a specific question in regards to a specific law since it may have given me a defense to my charges, and never even got one phone call to answer my question regarding the question in my fax. It was not until I was pleading to the charge a month later that she even addressed my question. I asked her why none of my calls we're returned and her response was "your not my only client". As far as I know she never interviewed any of the police officers or dug in to the reasons why my case and specific points were not properly documented by the police who investigated the circumstances that day.