For years, I was unwilling to write about my accomplishments and results. It’s not because I don’t have many. In fact, they quite simply dwarf most lawyers in my field: I’ve been fighting for 30+ years, and fighting tough and fighting smart.
I have been unwilling to list out case results because my energy goes into achieving case results for my clients every single day, including today. My work is every day. We are relentless.
I have won murder trials and assaults and rapes, in fact, won all kinds of cases that are, from the outside, both big and momentous, and others seemingly small. But on the inside of a case, when it’s my client and me speaking about his or her case, every case is big. Every case is meaningful.
Murder trials. Rape trials. Assaults. Drugs and guns. I’ve fought and won big cases in all kinds of ways: trials, motions, mitigation and negotiation.
But I want to let you know that seemingly small cases have been among my most meaningful. The young doctor who makes a mistake that could derail her career, the husband and father of three who makes a terrible decision that puts the family’s future on the line, the fight that got out of control that now separates lovers. These cases mean just as much to me than cases that appear in the news.
When I find myself with a little spare time, I don’t write about what I have done, but I often think about the clients whose lives I’ve helped get back on track and I reflect with gratitude that they entrusted their cases to me.
Time between cases is spent working for my other clients cases, not trying to convince other people to hire me.
Almost all my clients have always been by word of mouth. But those people who don’t know me and my work need to know about what my office has done and can do, so I will start the process of writing about them briefly.
But a results page doesn’t tell the full story of HOW great results were achieved, and that process to me is more important, because results follow the process. The process of what we do has taken 25 years of constant work and dedication to be what it is. To tell that story would fill a volume.
In defending Mr. Doan, Mike Stewart presented a portrait of a devoted family man and respected community member, emphasizing his decades-long friendship with the victim and the absence of any definitive evidence linking him to the shooting. Through diligent investigation and the support of numerous community members, Stewart demonstrated that the state’s case was built on speculation rather than proof—ultimately leading to the complete dismissal of all charges.
In defending Mr. Hardy, Mike Stewart undertook a highly publicized case involving a fatal shooting in Seattle’s Westlake light rail station, where the prosecution alleged multiple eyewitness identifications and prior altercations. Later appealed.
In representing Mr. Nelson, Mike Stewart successfully challenged the state’s narrative in a complex and emotionally charged case, demonstrating that the tragic shooting was accidental rather than criminal. Through detailed forensic analysis and strategic advocacy, Stewart exposed critical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s theory—leading to the full dismissal of all charges against his client.
In defending Ms. Jinhong, Mike Stewart confronted complex allegations involving estate management, fiduciary duties, and family conflict, emphasizing her longstanding legal career and the procedural flaws in the state’s case. Through careful review of the civil record and presentation of appellate issues, Stewart brought to light critical due process concerns and protected his client’s right to a fair and unbiased proceeding.
In representing Mr. McKnight in federal court, Mike Stewart navigated one of the first major post-pandemic jury trials in the Western District of Washington, addressing extensive drug and firearm allegations arising from a multi-agency investigation. Despite the government’s portrayal of McKnight as a career offender, Stewart worked to ensure his client’s rights were fully protected through rigorous pretrial litigation, evidentiary challenges, and advocacy that preserved crucial appellate issues in a high-profile federal prosecution.
In representing Mr. Ellis, Mike Stewart took on a complex federal case arising from a two-year multi-agency investigation into alleged gang-linked drug trafficking. Amid extensive evidence and public scrutiny, Stewart focused on safeguarding his client’s constitutional rights and mitigating sentencing exposure, securing a term below the government’s request in one of Washington’s largest Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force prosecutions.
In representing Mr. Lozano Lucas, Mike Stewart brought to light the years of abuse and trauma that preceded the tragic confrontation, framing the shooting as an emotionally charged response to a lifetime of pain rather than a calculated act. Through a careful presentation of mitigating evidence, Stewart secured a plea agreement that reduced the charge from first-degree to second-degree murder, resulting in a significantly lower sentence than originally sought by the state.
Mike Stewart emphasized the critical distinction between intent and tragedy, demonstrating that her actions—though devastating—stemmed from a mental health crisis rather than malice. Through compassionate advocacy and careful presentation of psychological and medical evidence, he secured a sentence far below the state’s recommendation in a case marked by extraordinary emotional and legal complexity.
In representing Mr. Rodriguez, Mike Stewart demonstrated that the fatal shooting stemmed from an act of defense rather than aggression, emphasizing the victim’s prior threats, history of violence, and the defendant’s youth and intent to protect his brother. Through careful presentation of evidence and mitigating factors, Stewart secured a sentence well below the standard range—recognizing both the unique circumstances of the confrontation and Rodriguez’s potential for rehabilitation.
Michael Stewart argued that the State used the same act—pointing a gun while yelling—to convict Owen Ray of both second-degree assault and felony harassment, so under the Freeman double-jeopardy framework the offenses were the same in law and fact and one must be vacated. He distinguished a prior Court of Appeals case as involving separate acts, emphasized there was no direct threat to kill, and pointed to legislative changes that made harassment overlap with assault to show cumulative punishment wasn’t intended.
M. had a terrible criminal history and a warrant for his arrest. He was in a high crime area at 3 a.m. and in possession of a gun in his waistband.
The investigating officer asked for his name and confirmed the warrant and arrested him.
Seems pretty routine. M was facing 10 years in prison and was assigned a lawyer who advised him to try for a 5 year deal.
But that’s not where the story ends. M hired Mike.
Under withering cross-examination at a hard-fought suppression hearing the officer admitted what the client had told Mike: before any investigation, there was a brief pat down. And that’s when the officer felt the gun, and that’s when the actual arrest occurred.
The court suppressed the patdown search of M as a warrantless search not based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
M was released from jail and is now married and enjoying this second chance at life.
MH was charged with Driving Under the Influence with an enhanced allegation that she had refused the breathalyzer test. After reviewing the video of the incident, it became apparent that MH was outside of her vehicle at the time the police arrived. Even though she was the vehicle’s registered owner, there was no one else around, and she had the keys to the vehicle there was insufficient evidence to show without a doubt that she had been the driver of the vehicle.
After two Motions to Dismiss were filed, the State dismissed the case.
D was charged with Rape of a Child First Degree and Rape in the Second Degree and was facing what amounted to a life sentence. The allegation was that he violently raped his best friend’s 12 year old daughter in her backyard. At trial the jury leaned in, wanting to believe the girl, as juries typically do, when she pointed to D and recounted a horrific set of events. Only she wasn’t telling the truth. When the cross examination was done, and when the defense put on its case, there was only one just verdict: Not Guilty to both counts, and complete exoneration.
S. was charged with Domestic Violence Assault for alleged throwing his pregnant girlfriend to the ground and stomping on her stomach. The allegations were atrocious. At trial the alleged victim appeared fearful and tearful and recounted the horrific assault.
But her story fell apart on cross examination. The defense brought in medical records and a health care provider showing the alleged victim gave multiple and inconsistent versions of events, brought in witnesses and photographic evidence proving the alleged victim actually inflicted injuries on S.’s, and evidence she was extorting S. to get him to sign away his property. S. testified that he was attacked, merely held her back from further scratching him, and that he chose not to tell the police that she attacked him because he didn’t want his pregnant girlfriend to be taken to jail.
The jury fully acquitted S., finding him Not Guilty, found he acted in self-defense and entered a Self Defense verdict. The State was ordered to pay S. $47,900 for legal fees and costs.
Things looked bleak for M. Based upon a series of text messages, M. was charged with threatening to kill his ex-wife after a highly contested court hearing. He was booked and ordered held on a $175,000 bail.
The high bail was sought against him because of the incendiary, sexist and racially motivated texts and specific threats to kill his ex wife and move the children out of state. The case against M. looked to be a slam dunk. It was all there in writing. He was looking at incarceration, loss of his military career and loss of his children.
But the case against him was all a lie. The defense team was able to show he was driving at the time of the texts and only had access to his phone. The data from his phone showed no texts were sent either directly or through any message app.
The police investigated further. The IP address and forensic evidence showed the ex wife sent the messages to herself.
The charges against M. were dismissed. The ex wife was charged with Perjury. And M. is enjoying his career and children.
J was charged with Felony DUI. He was going to prison for years if he was convicted. He had 7 prior DUIs.
The police reports were solid: the 911 call said J was asleep behind the wheel, car running, foot on the gas, engine revving, and the store owner couldn’t wake him. By the time the police arrived they saw him driving off going down the wrong side of the road. They stopped him, he was intoxicated, admitted to everything and the BAC at the station was a healthy .22.
J.s memory seemed shakey… at best. But he told a different story, one that would set him free if true.
The defense subpoenaed the video footage from the store. Turns out J’s memory was better than the police.
At a suppression hearing the following facts were elicited: the vehicle described in the 911 call didn’t match Js vehicle, J drove out of the store parking lot before the police arrived. J didn’t drive the wrong way down the road. The police didn’t even see him drive. At the time the police arrived J had pulled over on the side of the road and was talking to a guy on a bike.
The court found no probable cause for the stop. Rather than going to prison, J went home to his family. Actually, he drove home to his family.
W. hired Mike after being found Guilty of multiple felonies. Mike won a motion for new trial, then won the trial. W. went home to his family.
When W. inquired about retaining Mike, W. had already been found guilty of all counts by a jury, was awaiting sentencing and was looking at prison. To make matters worse, the court had found him in contempt for violating its orders. Things looked bleak for W.
W. said he was innocent. He hired Mike to prove it.
After investigating the issues, Mike moved for a new trial, won the motion, went to trial and won that trial as well.
W. didn’t go to prison, he didn’t get saddled with multiple felonies, and he got his life back.
W. gave Mike a small keepsake that he carries with him everyday to remind him that when things look their worst, hard work, determination, and grit always provide hope.
From our office in Tacoma, WA, we represent clients in Auburn, Bonney Lake, Centralia, Chehalis, Des Moines, DuPont, Edgewood, Federal Way, Fircrest, Fife, Gig Harbor, Kent, Lakewood, Milton, Normandy Park, Olympia, Orting, Pacific, Parkland, Puyallup, SeaTac, Seattle, Spanaway, Steilacoom, Sumner, University Place, and other towns and cities throughout King County, Lewis County, Pierce County, and Thurston County.
Results listed are not a guarantee or indication of future case results.
