David Benowitz

Washington D.C. Criminal defense lawyer David Benowitz has spent his career fighting for justice. He has represented individuals charged in state and federal court, and has handled a wide variety of criminal cases including, DUI charges, assault charges, drug charges, as well as white collar criminal offenses. He has been rated the highest possible 10/10 rating on AVVO and is also certified as a criminal trial advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Mr. Benowitz received his law degree from The George Washington University School of Law, and received his undergraduate education at the University of Pennsylvania graduating with honors.Mr. Benowitz is barred in DC and Maryland and is admitted to the federal bars for the U.S. District Courts of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

Temple University

LL.M | Trial Law

2005 - 2006

The George Washington Law School

B.A | Law

1992 - 1995

Honors: Law Review

University of Pennsylvania

B.A | History

1987 - 1991

Honors: History Honors

Partner

Price Benowitz LLP

2001 - Current

Faculty Member

Harvard Law School - Trial Advocacy Workshop

2012 - 2017

Professorial Lecturer in Law

George Washington University Law School

2012 - 2013

Public Defender/Staff Attorney

Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

1995 - 2001

Trial Practice, DCLSIC Orientation

1997

Investigations

1998

Criminal Practice Institute

Judge/Evaluation - Trial, DCLSIC Trial Practice

1998

Motions Practice, DCLSIC Weekly Lecture

2000

Trial Practice, Training Conference

2001

Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate

The National Board of Trial Advocacy

AV Rating-Preeminent

Martindale-Hubbell

2009

Highest Grade - Labor Law

The George Washington University Law School

1993

Highest Grade - Criminal Law

The George Washington University Law School

1992

Top 100 Trial Lawyers

National Trial Lawyers

2014 - 2018

Super Lawyer

Super Lawyers

2013 - 2017

American Society of Legal Advocates

Member

2013 - Current

American Bar Association

Member

2010 - Current

Maryland Association for Justice

Member

2010 - Current

National Board of Trial Advocacy

Member

2010 - Current

National College for DUI Defense

Member

2009 - Current

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Bar

Since 1996

Maryland

Supreme Court of Maryland

Since 2009

• Free Consultation
• Credit Cards Accepted

Q. What is slip and fall action?

April 12, 2011

A: A slip and fall action is a type of personal injury lawsuit commonly filed by customers who has been injured after slipping and falling on a business owner’s property. Owners or possessors of land have a duty to keep the property safe to prevent harm to those who enter the land lawfully. Therefore, to prevail in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must usually show that the property owner had notice or knowledge of the dangerous condition and to remove the condition or warn others about the condition within a reasonable amount of time.

Q. What is contributory negligence?

April 12, 2011

A: Contributory negligence is a defense to negligence where by a defendant alleges that the plaintiff’s actions created an unreasonable risk to his or her own safety. When a plaintiff acts unreasonably to contribute to his or her injury, that plaintiff may be found wholly or partially responsible for the injury, even though the defendant may have been the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Q. What is comparative negligence?

April 5, 2011

A: Traditionally, a finding that a plaintiff’s negligence contributed in any way to his injury completely barred any recovery of damages. Over time, states began to view this approach to contributory negligence as excessively harsh and unfair to plaintiffs and adopted the “comparative negligence” approach to contributory negligence.

Under this modern approach, there are two systems: pure comparative fault systems and modified comparative fault systems. In a pure comparative fault system, a plaintiff will always recover damages, even if she is 99% at fault. However, the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by damages for which she is responsible. In states that use a modified comparative system, like the pure comparative fault system, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by damages for which she is responsible. But if the plaintiff’s negligence is assigned a greater percentage than the defendant’s fault (usually 50% or 51%), the plaintiff cannot recover any damages. ... Read More