Court Martial Defense Lawyers

Our team of hard hitting defense lawyers have the experience and firepower necessary to level the playing field.

Our lawyers defend military personnel worldwide. Our attorneys defend Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard court martial cases in the USA, Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait. Bahrain, Afghanistan), and the Pacific (Korea, Hawaii, Japan). We also defend clients that are suspected of crimes or under investigation BEFORE they are charged with the intent of avoiding charges. Founded and led by attorney Michael Waddington, our firm is the most aggressive, experienced and successful team of military lawyers in the world.

HOT TOPIC: Sexual Assault in the Military- Click here if you are accused of sexual assault.

Currently, due to political pressure, many servicemembers are being persecuted by overzealous law enforcement, JAGs, and politically correct commands. Many will do whatever it takes to convict you and send you to jail. If you are accused of a sexual offense, then you must hire the best sex assault defense lawyer possible to aggressively fight for your freedom and reputation. Your life depends on it. If you rely on a free military lawyer to save your life, then you are rolling the dice. When you gamble, you usually lose. The house wins. Here, the house is the military.

When it comes to military sexual assault and rape cases, our results and experience are unmatched. Contact us to discuss your case!

Results

We invite you to compare our case results with ANY lawyers worldwide, civilian or military. We also provide references on request.

Chart Listing Recent Court Martial Case Results with Discharges Listed


What are the Real Costs of a Court Martial Conviction? - Learn why a quick plea deal may not be in your best interests.

High Profile Cases

Mr. Waddington has successfully defended numerous serious sexual assault cases and high profile court martial cases arising from the War on Terror. He has been reported on and quoted by hundreds of major media sources worldwide and provided consultation services to 60 Minutes, ABC Nightline, CNN, CBS, the 2010 Golden Globe winning TV series "The Good Wife" and other various international media outlets. Click here to see clips of "The Good Wife" court martial episode.

Click here to read about our high profile cases.

In a Court Martial, What Am I Up Against?
In the military justice system, the Prosecution has numerous attorneys and paralegals working hard to put you in prison for as long as possible. The accused is often scared, overwhelmed, and feels helpless, and they should be. The deck is stacked against them. That is what the military wants. Defendants believe that they have no choice but to quickly plead guilty. PLEADING GUILTY SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT! YET, SOME MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE LAWYERS PLEAD ALL OF THEIR CLIENTS GUILTY, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE OR THEY ARE INNOCENT.

-ASK YOUR PROSPECTIVE CIVILIAN OR MILITARY LAWYER TO DESCRIBE THE DETAILS & OUTCOMES OF THE LAST 12 CASES THEY DEFENDED. ASK HOW MANY OF THIER CLIENTS WERE ACQUITTED, HOW MANY WERE NOT DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITARY, & HOW MANY CASES THEY FOUGHT IN FRONT OF A JURY. Click here to see Mr. Waddington's Recent Case Results

BEWARE - RED FLAG: If your free military lawyer DOES NOT want you to hire an experienced civilian lawyer, be very cautious. Your military lawyer should want as much legal firepower as possible on your team. Many military lawyers try to persuade the accused to not hire a civilian because of ego or because they want to force you into a quick and easy guilty plea.

The military has a conviction rate over 90% and almost all convicted defendants are discharged from the military and sent to prison.

When you plead guilty, you have over a 95% chance of going to jail, getting a punitive discharge from the military, losing your rank, & you are GUARANTEED to be a Federal convict for the rest of your life. If you want to discuss fighting your case, call our military attorneys to discuss your options.

Take a look at what you are up against & why you need a hard hitting, fearless civilian defense lawyer fighting for you (these observations are based on Mr. Waddington's personal experience in court martials worldwide):

  • Government prosecution team members usually outnumber your assigned military defense team 5 to 1. They will often manipulate every aspect of the case and fight hard to deprive you of your ability to mount a legal defense. Some will use underhanded tactics to win. You must level the playing field with a battle tested defense lawyer.

  • The accused is often denied requested delays and continuances so that they can prepare for courts martial, Article 32's, and boards.

  • Some prosecutors will acquire the testimony of witnesses by offering them immunity, plea deals, and favors, so long as the witnesses help the prosecution win their case & say what they want them to say. You need a lawyer that can destroy lying witnesses and uncover corrupt prosecutors and perjured testimony.

  • Almost always, the accused is denied expert assistance, even when the prosecution has numerous expert witnesses in the same area. Commonly, the prosecutor and SJA play a key role in ensuring that the accused is denied expert assistance. The accused is usually forced to beg the judge for the same experts that the Government has and that is often denied as well. The accused must have an attorney with the experience and skill to win a case without defense experts, if necessary.

  • Military prosecutors often use the "shotgun approach" to charging. Their strategy is simple, charge a military service member with as many charges as possible, and they will have no choice but to plead guilty. It is not uncommon for a court martial charge sheet to be 3 pages long, usually with the same conduct charged over and over again, in a variety of ways.

  • The Government has virtually unlimited financial resources and some prosecutors will try to win at all costs.

  • CID, OSI, NCIS, & other military investigators are trained to use lies, trickery, & deceit, & they are good at it. Their official training courses teach them to use "Liars, Trickery, & Deceit" to get the job done. They will get away with as much lying as the defense lawyer will allow. You need a lawyer that can expose their lying, deceptive ways, & turn it to your advantage at trial. NEVER TRUST A CID, OSI, or NCIS AGENT if you are a suspected of a crime or being "interviewed" by an investigator. Don't trust a military lawyer that claims to be "friends" with OSI, CID, or NCIS. You will live to regret it, after you get out of military prison.

  • The Government has its own staff of criminal investigators (CID, NCIS, OSI, MPI, etc.) trying to dig up dirt to use against you. They will almost always overlook, misplace, or hide evidence that helps your case. At trial, they will take innocent facts and twist them to make you look guilty.

  • Rank often plays a role in the outcome of your case. Almost always, the Judge, the Chief of Military Justice, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), most of the jury, the Convening Authority (the person that picks the jury and decides whether or not you will be court martialed), the Article 32 officer, the chain of command, and virtually every person that makes a decision in your case will outrank you and your assigned Military Lawyer. An aggressive civilian defense lawyer is not subject to rank.

  • The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) is the convening authority's (CA) legal advisor. The SJA has a duty to be fair, neutral, and impartial when giving advice. The SJA's role is "justice." The reality is, to many SJA's, "justice" means a conviction, hard jail time, and a discharge. The SJA is the boss, senior supervisor, and rater of the prosecutor. They are not looking out for your freedom and your family's welfare. They are not neutral. They want you in jail. Most SJA's actively strategize with their prosecutors on how to convict the defendant and maximize his jail time. Many SJAs admonish their prosecutors when they lose a case. Some SJAs will put pressure on your military lawyer to get their way.
  • In the Air Force, the "neutral" SJA will almost always refuse to allow Article 32 testimony to be recorded and/or transcribed, unless it will help their case. They will often stop the Article 32 hearing if the defense lawyers attempt to record the testimony at their own expense, even in cases where the accused faces LIFE in prison. Refusing to record hearings in Felony cases is unheard of in civilian and other military courts. In a recent rape Article 32 at Dover AFB, the defense was forbidden from using a tape recorder to record the hearing and from transcribing the hearing at their own expense. The prosecution and SJA fought against the recording. The stated reason was that the defense would use the transcript at trial to impeach the alleged "victim" if she changed her story. Think you can't afford an experienced civilian lawyer, you can't afford not to!
  • Some SJA offices will proceed to trial on baseless charges even when the Article 32 investigating officer finds that the charges are not supported by the facts.
  • In a court martial, the prosecution can call any witnesses they want. They don't have to tell the accused what the witness will say. On the other hand, the defense, in order to have witnesses brought to court martial, must disclose to the prosecution exactly what the witnesses will say (in writing) and what role that testimony will have in the defense. Some judges require the defense to disclose even more details to the prosecution. This often reveals the entire defense strategy. In the end, after the prosecution learns the defense strategy, they can then pick and choose which defense witnesses will be brought to the court martial.
  • In some cases (especially high profile court martial cases), extreme pressure will be put on the military defense lawyer to "not rock the boat" or "burn bridges."
  • Military defense lawyers are forbidden (by the military, not their State Legal Bar Associations) to speak or deal with the media, even if they speak the truth and it will help their client get a fair trial. They must get "permission" from their senior boss, an O-6 in Washington, DC, in order to be able to respond to negative or false press. The prosecution often releases harmful and unfounded information to the media when they file charges. In the Army, defense lawyers are even more restricted. During the high profile Bagram Prison Abuse court martials of 2005-2006, Mr. Waddington (then an Army lawyer) successfully fought false Government accusations in the media. It embarrassed the military, exposed a bogus prosecution, and revealed that the Pentagon sanctioned detainee abuse and then court martialed soldiers for carrying out their orders. In Dec 2005, in the middle of the Bagram trials, Army TDS leadership rewrote their policy and made it nearly impossible for an Army TDS lawyer to defend against negative press.

BOTTOM LINE: IF YOU WANT A FAIR SHAKE IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM, THEN YOU NEED A FEARLESS LAWYER TO FIGHT FOR IT.
RECENT CASE RESULTS:
  • October 2011 - U.S. v. Army E-8 - SOUTHCOM, Miami, El Salvador, Fort Sam Houston, TX - Client was a Special Forces soldier accused of violently raping and sodomizing a Salvadoran housekeeper. There was allegedly physical evidence, DNA evidence and numerous eyewitnesses that supported the claim. The El Salvadoran Government wanted our client in jail. To appease the Salvadorans, the American Government spared no expense to win this case. It became an international incident between the US & Salvadorans and Not Guilty was not an option for the US Government.

    However, our client took and passed a polygraph and provided evidence to prove his innocence to the US Government. SOUTHCOM disregarded all of his evidence and suppressed it at trial. They wanted to make an example out of this soldier and gain favor with El Salvador by sacrificing one of their own (regardless of his innocence).

    To gain an upper hand, the prosecution denied almost all defense witnesses. However, they flew up numerous Salvadoran witnesses and several American witnesses to testify against our client. They also brought a Salvadoran doctor who tested that there was overwhelming physical evidence to prove rape.

    To further stack the deck, the Army appointed one of the top Special Victim Prosecutors (SVP) in the Army. Then, they brought in a nationally known civilian prosecutor and expert in sexual assault prosecutions (similar to Nancy Grace) to work with the prosecution and get a conviction.

    Mr. Waddington and Capt Dustin Murphy, along with legendary DNA expert, Dean Wideman, mounted a defense for our client with limited resources. We proved that the alleged victim was a hustler and liar, her husband most likely raped her, and that the DNA evidence proved our client's innocence.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
  • October 2011 - U.S. v. Navy E-5 - Rota Navy Base, Spain - Client accused of sexually assaulting a female sailor, tax evasion, fraud, aggravated assault on another female, indecent language, and other offenses. We plead not guilty and fought the charges.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
  • September 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-3 - McGuire AFB, New Jersey - Client was accused of two Sexual Assault - Article 120 offenses (aggravated sexual assault and wrongful sexual contact). He was also charged with underage drinking. Our client faced over 31 years in prison. He was accused of going into a bathroom where a female airman had been vomiting and was supposedly unconscious and sexually assaulting her. Two Security Forces police officers claimed to have witnessed the crime and intervened.

    To strengthen their case, Air Force OSI agents planned a sting operation where the alleged victim called the accused and tried to get him to admit to the crimes. They recorded the call, in which the accused repeatedly apologized and said some very incriminating statements. The recording was played for the jury.

    Michael Waddington and Capt Miguel "The Hammer" Acosta teamed up once again to defend the accused. We fought all of the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

    Prior to the case, the McGuire AFB SARC (Sex Assault Response Coordinator) had intentionally tainted the jury pool by teaching EVERYONE ON THE JURY (15 jurors in total) classes about sexual assault. She had been teaching the base and members of the jury that if a female has ANY alcohol then the female cannot consent to sexual relations and if a female has ANY alcohol and has ANY sexual encounter, then she is a victim of sexual assault. Almost all of the jurors stated that if a girl vomits due to alcohol, then she cannot consent. The defense team had a difficult task ahead of them.

    The defense was able to prove that the Security Forces police officer "witnesses" were liars and criminals and that they severely perjured themselves on the stand. We proved that they severely beat and abused our client the night of the "assault" because he was caught making out with one of their police officers girlfriends. In addition, the victim was exposed as a liar, drama queen and drug and alcohol addict. We showed that she also played a role in the beating and aggravated assault of our client and its cover-up.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES. Guilty of Underage drinking.

    Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, NO LOSS OF RANK, Reprimand and forfeiture of $200 x 4 months

    UPDATE: The court martial conviction was OVERTURNED by the General in October 2011. The conviction was dismissed.
  • August 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Minot AFB, North Dakota - Client was accused of breaking into the home of a female that he had just met that day and raping her while she was unconscious. This was a tough case because the alleged victim and her friends all claimed that she was very drunk, that she was vomiting, that she could not walk, and that she was unconscious. They also claimed that the next day, our client confessed to the crimes and apologized.

    Mr. Waddington fought this case with ADC Capt Todd Tilford. We were also assisted by the renowned forensic psychologist, Dr. Jeffrey Younggren.

    When we started jury selection, we discovered that the jury was stacked with biased jurors. Several jurors and/or their family members were sex assault victims, one juror was a sex assault victim advocate and one was in law enforcement. We got down to 5 jurors and fought the charges in front of an enlisted panel.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
  • August 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force O-5 - McGuire AFB, New Jersey - Lt Col client was accused of 9 specifications including adultery, indecent language towards female subordinates, unprofessional relationship with 3 subordinates, illegal use of a Government cell phone, and fraternizing with three lower enlisted subordinates. Our goal was to save his retirement, avoid lengthy jail time and to get a Not Guilty on the adultery. The client was married as was one subordinate. The evidence was overwhelming and included text messages, numerous witnesses, Facebook messages, a hotel receipt and phone records.

    Mr. Waddington and ADC Capt Miguel Acosta fought the allegations in front of an officer jury. In the end, we were able to save his retirement and get a reasonable sentence (the prosecution asked for 6 months and a dismissal). He was found not guilty of adultery and the defense team convinced the judge to dismiss three additional charges. In sentencing, the Judge merged two of the other charges into one charge.

    Punishment: NO DISMISSAL, 60 days in jail, forfeitures, and a reprimand.
  • July 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Eglin AFB, Florida - Client accused of violently raping, choking and threatening an Air Force Security Forces/Policewoman. After the alleged rape, he supposedly showed her a music video of a woman being raped, killed and eaten and threatened her. This alleged "victim" was very persuasive and could cry on demand. The problem was, she was lying. Our client maintained his innocence throughout the case.

    The Air Force brought in their best and most aggressive female sex assault prosecutor, the Nancy Grace of the Air Force. This prosecutor is one of the best in the military.

    The defense assembled a Dream Team of their own. Mr. Waddington, ADC Capt Andrew Norton, and Senior ADC Maj Jack Jones mounted their defense by extensively investigating the alleged victim. We were able to prove that the victim was the ex-girlfriend of the accused, after the "rape" they continued to have sex, that the victim posted Facebook messages joking about being raped, and other damaging facts.

    In addition, we proved that the victim did not cry rape until after the accused dumped her and started to see another girl. First she claimed that she was pregnant and tried to get back together with the accused. When he refused, she accused him of rape.

    We also presented several other airmen that the victim had falsely accused of sex assault and later recanted. The "victim" took the witness stand and lied about all of the above facts because she did not know that we had proof and we had her Facebook records.

    Also, she claimed that after she was raped, she was forced to watch the disturbing rape video. We proved that the victim went to a rock concert of the band that made the video and posted pictures about it on Facebook, after the alleged rape.

    ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

    This "victim" is still in the Air Force and will likely falsely accuse someone else in the near future. This goes to show that the command is afraid of women that falsely claim to be sexual assault victim. She should be court martialed for perjury and false official statement. Instead, she is still getting preferential treatment.
  • July 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-6 - Aviano AFB, Italy - Client with 18 years of service was responsible for a supply warehouse on various deployments. He was accused of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of military equipment and selling it on Ebay.

    The Government lined up numerous witnesses and alleged coconspirators to testify that our client was guilty. The client was facing over 30 years in prison and a DD and he was originally offer a plea deal that would have sent him to jails for several years.

    Mr. Waddington and ADC Capt Christopher James fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL LARCENY CHARGES GUILTY of one charge, Dereliction of Duty

    Punishment: 30 days in jail, NO DISCHARGE, one grade reduction, a reprimand, and forfeitures
  • May 2011 - U.S. v. Army E-5 - Fort Irwin, California - Client accused of sexually assaulting a male subordinate soldier. The "victim" claimed to be straight and alleged that our client repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted him. The prosecution portrayed our client as a gay sexual predator. Our client claimed that it was the victim that was harassing and assaulting him.

    Mr. Waddington, without military co-counsel, fought the charges at the Article 32 hearing. We were warned that the case was "going forward to trial regardless of what the Article 32 officer recommended." Undaunted, Mr. Waddington proceeded to fight the charges at the Article 32 and confronted the alleged "victim" with devastating text messages and gay porn images that the "victim" took of himself and sent to our client. The lying "victim" thought the images no longer existed because our client's phone was destroyed. The images were forensically recovered by a private lab for use in defense of our client. At first, the victim denied the images and then, when confronted, he claimed they were taken and sent "by accident." Another lying Government "victim" was exposed.

    ALL COURT MARTIAL CHARGES DISMISSED.
  • March 2011 - U.S. v. Marine E-4 - Quantico Marine Base, Virginia - Client worked in the American Embassy in Moscow, Russia. He was a member of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group and was accused of sexually assaulting the minor daughter of Government personnel, one of whom was a senior FBI agent. Her father was a Washington insider that did whatever he could to see our client go down. Client was also accused of threatening the head of Embassy security. Our client was removed from the Embassy and a massive investigation took place. NCIS and other Government agencies attempted to build a case to convict our client. At trial, we requested numerous witnesses on behalf of our client. As is typical, the prosecution DENIED ALL BUT TWO of our witnesses. We were also limited in our ability to mount a defense because we were denied the opportunity to collect evidence from the Embassy that could help prove our client's innocence. Embassy personnel were intimidated and warned not to speak with or help the accused. Our client maintained his innocence from the beginning until the end. At trial, the girl's father took the stand three times (he kept coming back to add "new information").

    Despite the odds, Mr. Waddington and Capt Eric Winkofsky fought the case in front of a Marine jury during a two day trial at Quantico Marine Base.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
  • March 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-5 - Luke AFB, Arizona - Client accused of Article 120 sexual assault and other offenses. He allegedly assaulted the wife of another airman. We were hired before charges were preferred and contacted OSI and the command to let them know our client intended to fight the charges. After several weeks of investigating, the command decided to not charge our client. Instead, he was given an Article 15 for sexual assault, which is almost unheard of.

    Client avoided jail, a conviction, sex offender registration and only received a one grade reduction and forfeiture of pay.
  • February 2011 - U.S. v. Marine E-7 (E-8 select with 18 years) - Parris Island, South Carolina - Client served in 2005 at Fallujah, Iraq with the II MEF. He was accused of receiving over $180,000 in bribes and jewelry from contractors in Iraq in exchange for awarding contracts. NCIS spent 4 years and tons of money traveling around the world to build a case. NCIS cherry picked evidence, twisted witness testimony and withheld favorable evidence in order to build a stronger case. Because almost all of their evidence was hearsay that came from shady witnesses, the Government knew that they would have a difficult time winning at a court martial. Instead, they took client to a separation board and presented over 500 pages of documents, almost all of which was hearsay. They also played a NCIS interview in which the NCIS agent had a coached witness repeat scripted answers implicating our client. Then, they presented a lengthy Naval Audit Service Audit showing supposed "irregularities" in our client's contracts. We were denied the ability to confront and cross examine our accusers because the Government would not bring them to the board. Several other Marines facing the same allegations were convicted at court martial.

    Mr. Waddington and Captain Paul Isherwood fought the case in front of an officer board with one enlisted member.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALLEGATIONS, RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY
  • February 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-5 - Dover Air Force Base, Delaware - Charges: Rape, Burglary, False Official Statement x 2

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, NG BURGLARY, NG OF ONE CHARGE OF LYING, GUILTY OF FALSE OFFICIAL AND UNLAWFUL ENTRY
    Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION, 2 grade reduction, reprimand, forfeitures
  • December 2010 - U.S. v. Army O-3 - Fort Gordon, Georgia - Client was a male nurse that was accused of numerous Article 120 sexual assault charges, dereliction of duty and other offenses. He allegedly repeatedly sexually assaulted a female patient that was under his care. We were hired before the charges were filed and began to build our defense. After charges were preferred, Mr. Waddington and CPT Sean Fitzgibbon contested the charges at the Article 32. 14 days after the 32, the General dismissed all charges and specifications.
    Result: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER ARTICLE 32
  • December 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - Fort Hood, Texas - Client accused of attempted forcible sodomy, various Article 120 sexual assault charges, and maltreatment of a subordinate. He allegedly sexually assaulted an E-4 female, numerous times, while on a funeral detail. Several of her friends, including one of the soldiers on the funeral detail, testified against our client. Mr. Waddington and CPT Joe Marcee contested all of the charges in front of an 8 member enlisted jury.
    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES & SPECIFICATIONS
  • November 2010 - U.S. v. Marine Corps E-4 - Marine Corps Base Hawaii - Client accused of aggravated sexual assault on a fellow Marine, false official statement to NCIS and adultery (client's wife was a Marine). Client allegedly confessed to NCIS in writing and in a video taped statement, which were shown to the jury. NCIS and the USACIL crime lab found DNA evidence and semen. The alleged victim purportedly drank over 18 shots of tequila and numerous mixed drinks before she claims to have passed out. Mr. Waddington, along with Capt Jason Morris, fought the case in front of an enlisted jury.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF THE SEX OFFENSE, NOT GUILTY OF LYING TO NCIS, GUILTY OF ADULTERY.
    Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, 2 grade reduction, restriction, 45 days hard labor without confinement, forfeitures

  • November 2010 - U.S. Navy E-5 - Bahrain Navy Base - Client accused of DUI, hitting and killing a pedestrian with his car, hitting and dismembering another pedestrian, fleeing the scene and other charges. Mr. Waddington and his hard hitting co-counsel LT Jessica Pyle, battled the Government for over 7 months. Finally, the Government accepted a deal with a 2 year maximum. At the sentencing, the military judge sentenced the client to 8 years in prison (client will serve about 20 months).
    Result: 2 years, DD, E-1, TFP

Military Defense Lawyer - Sexual Assault Trial Lawyer

Michael Waddington is a criminal defense lawyer defending service members worldwide at court martial and administrative separation boards. In the past year alone, he has successfully defended military personnel in Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait), Central Asia (Afghanistan), the Pacific (Yongsan Korea, Camp Casey Korea, Okinawa Japan, Yokota Japan), and throughout the United States. Mr. Waddington has a reputation for being a fearless and hard hitting trial lawyer. He has successfully fought cases with overwhelming odds and drives a hard bargain when negotiating. Prosecutors don't take a defense lawyer seriously unless they know that the lawyer has a history of taking cases to trial and winning.

Mr. Waddington has been involved in some of the most high profile cases arising from the War on Terror. He has extensive experience fighting against Military Prosecution "Teams" and winning. Mr. Waddington will personally handle your case from start to finish. He keeps his case load small and generally only takes cases were the client wants to fight the allegations.

Know Your Rights as a Suspect

Choosing a military defense attorney may be the most important decision that you will ever have to make. Do not go into a court martial or administrative separation board without carefully selecting your lawyer.

Court Martial Lawyer

Our defense lawyers provide professional representation at General Court Martial (GCM), Special Court Martial (BCD Special), or Summary Court Martial (SCM). Working with your assigned counsel, we take the lead and develop the best strategy to protect your life, liberty and property.

Administrative Separation & Show Cause Boards

Our attorneys can help defend your rights at separation boards & show cause boards. Mr. Waddington has successfully represented hundreds of service members facing administrative separation.

Military Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Navy medical malpractice lawyer
Army medical malpractice lawyer
Air Force medical malpractice lawyer
Military medical malpractice attorney
Navy medical malpractice attorney
Army medical malpractice attorney
Air Force medical malpractice attorney

Military Discharge Upgrades - Discharge Upgrade Attorney

Click here for a guide to Army Discharge Upgrades, written by Michael Wadington. Our lawyers can help you with your military discharge upgrade and we can represent you in front of a discharge review board or in the preparation of your military discharge upgrade packet.