History of Firm
In July of 2012, Charles Lugosi returned to his hometown, Brantford, Ontario, Canada to resume his practice of Canadian law as a sole practitioner under the business name, Lugosi Law Firm. Before relocating to the United States to attend graduate school, and work as a law professor, Charles was a busy criminal defense lawyer defending clients charged with murder throughout British Columbia.
Of Counsel to his new firm, is retired lawyer and former bencher, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Robert I. Martin, B.A. (Royal Military College), LL.B. University of Toronto) LL.M. (University of London) and Hon. Fellow, Trinity College, Dublin.
Since April 3, 2014, Charles practices in association with Kathy Tomaszewski, an Ontario lawyer, who also maintains a sole and independent practice.
Kathy graduated in 1980 from the University of Western Ontario law school. She was the gold medalist, earning the highest academic average cumulatively attained over three years of law school studies. Kathy clerked in the Supreme Court of Canada, for the late Chief Justice of Canada, Bora Laskin from 1980-1981, and then attended Harvard Law School, earning her Masters of Law, graduating in 1982. Kathy was then invited to join the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario as a full-time professor of law, where, for the next 10 years, she taught a variety of subjects, including constitutional law, corporate law, securities regulations, commercial law, and secured transactions. Kathy was admitted to practice law in Ontario in 1984. Kathy is especially skilled at legal research and case law analysis, providing strong support to Charles and his criminal, constitutional and family law clients.
Charles was admitted to practice law in Ontario in 1981 and was admitted to practice law in British Columbia in 1982. Charles joined the American Trial Lawyers Association in 1981 and began practicing criminal law in 1983 as a prosecutor and soon assisted on major kidnapping and murder cases. By 1988 Charles owned his own litigation practice in Victoria BC and starting in 1988 was included in Who's Who in Canada. In 1990 Charles began a province wide law murder defense practice and defended numerous defendants in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Prince George, Penticton, Cranbrook, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Terrace, Smithers, and Fort St. John, obtaining acquittals, reduced verdicts, or dismissals in 89% of 35 homicide and sexual assault cases defended from 1990-2000. Charles became a prominent criminal lawyer throughout British Columbia and achieved a national reputation as an appellate attorney when he narrowly won the Feeney case in the Supreme Court of Canada.
In 2000, Charles closed his office in Prince George BC and attended the University of Pennsylvania where he earned three graduate degrees, including two in law (a masters degree and a doctorate in juridical science (equivalent of a PhD), and worked with one of Philadelphia's best lawyers, leading criminal appellate attorney, former professor Peter Goldberger, Esq., whose practice focuses on white collar crime. Charles, (now known as Dr. Lugosi, having earned a doctoral degree in law), then became a law professor, teaching first at Western's law school in London, Ontario and then at ABA accredited law schools in Florida and Michigan. Charles taught criminal law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, the Rule of Law (in the context of international law), jurisprudence, property law (including land claims, environmental law, and real estate), tort law (including negligence, libel, slander, nuisance, trespass) healthcare law, and bioethics. Charles' publications about enemy combatants, criminal law, habeas corpus, constitutional law, and the rule of law were of valuable assistance to appellate counsel in the United States who used Charles' arguments before the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Hamdi and Hamdan.
In 2007, Charles created the winning legal arguments used by Harvey Strosberg QC to defeat the attempt by lawyers for prosecutors and the police to stop a civil law suit that claimed a wrongful murder conviction of James Driskell resulted from negligent omission to disclose evidence. Judge Greenberg agreed with Charles' analysis that there is no statutory or common law immunity for the tort claims against prosecutors and the police, and that it was up to the trial judge after hearing all the evidence, to decide whether a cause of action in negligence lies against Crown attorneys. The defendants avoided trial and settled Driskell's claims for millions of dollars.
Charles decided to join the Michigan Bar while a visiting law professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, and involved some of his students in a volunteer appeal project which resulted in the freeing of Julie Baumer, a factually innocent person from prison. On November 20, 2009, Judge James Biernat Jr. granted the petition filed on behalf of Julie Baumer and ordered a new trial. Charles was joined in this appeal by other attorneys, including prominent Macomb County former prosecutor and defense attorney Carl J. Marlinga. On October 15, 2010 Carl Marlinga's able representation of Julie Baumer, with the assistance of Dave Moran and law students from the Innocence Clinic at the University of Michigan, successfully obtained an acquittal of all charges at Julie Baumer's retrial. A key part of the retrial was the reading in of irrefutable medical evidence done previously by Charles at the prior proceeding.
On March 26, 2013 the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines accepted the legal argument Charles created in an Amicus Brief he authored on behalf of the Rutherford Institute. The Court ruled that in the absence of a search warrant, a police officer commits trespass at the front door of a private residence when a trained police dog is used as an investigative tool to detect any potentially criminal activity inside that home, thereby committing an unconstitutional search, contrary to the Fourth Amendment. Like his victory in the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Feeney, another search case involving state intrusion into a private residence, this too was a narrow 5:4 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 27, 2013 the United States Supreme Court in Millbrook v. United States accepted the legal argument Charles advanced in an Amicus Brief he authored on behalf of the Rutherford Institute. The Court agreed with Charles that prison guards are not immune from intentional torts, such as sexual assault, forced upon helpless prisoners. In reaching this decision, the Court overruled lower courts that misinterpreted the text of the relevant section of the Federal Torts Claim Act, and adopted Charles' interpretation of the law. The decision was unanimous.
Charles' credentials authorize him to practice in British Columbia, Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada and enable him to be authorized to practice in every Canadian province except Quebec. Charles is authorized to practice in Michigan state and its federal courts, Washington state, the Sixth and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Charles is a former member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and the Federal Bar Association. Charles maintains a law office in Chelsea Michigan to serve clients who live in the United States.
Assisting the firm is Dr. Nikolay Kovalev, Ph.D. (law) (Queen's, Belfast, N. Ireland) , LL.M. (Indiana) B.A. (law)(West Kazakhstan), who completed his articles under the supervision of Charles. Nick, after his admission to the Ontario Bar, will be joining the firm as an independent contractor. Until then, he is available as a consultant. Nick will continue his employment as a tenured criminology professor at Laurier's Brantford's campus. Nick has a special interest in criminal law.
Please call 1-519-761-7000 to speak with Charles and ask him to schedule an initial consultation at a discounted rate. Charles does house calls for people with limited mobility, and visits clients in jails.
LUGOSI LAW FIRM
PAST RESULTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. LITIGATION OUTCOMES WILL DIFFER DEPENDING UPON THE UNIQUE FACTS OF EACH CASE.