Practice areas: Family Law, DUI-DWI, Personal Injury; view more
Licensed in California since: 2020
Education: The University of North Dakota School of Law
Selected to Rising Stars: 2026 Call today:
951-263-0412
Free Consultation Shaw 3 Law Firm
337 N. Vineyard AveSuite 315
Ontario, CA 91764 Visit website
Details
Walter D. Shaw III, managing attorney at Shaw 3 Law Firm in Ontario, California, is a nationally recognized and highly accomplished attorney known for his dedication, precision, and proven success in high-stakes legal matters. Serving clients throughout California, Walter has earned a reputation as a leading CPS and juvenile dependency attorney in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, while also handling cases in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and statewide.
Walter’s practice focuses on Juvenile Dependency (CPS/DCFS/CFS) defense, criminal defense with an emphasis on DUI defense, and personal injury matters, including car accidents. He has represented over 1,000 clients, achieving successful family reunifications in CPS cases, reductions or dismissals in DUI charges, and favorable settlements for personal injury victims.
As a recognized authority in Juvenile Dependency law, Walter is a proud member of the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC). He leverages specialized training and national collaboration to defend parents and relatives in CPS proceedings, ensuring that parental rights are protected, voices are heard, and children are safely reunited with their families whenever possible.
In criminal defense, Walter is particularly respected for his DUI expertise. As a member of the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA), he stays at the forefront of forensic science, case law, and trial strategy. Known for meticulous preparation, courtroom skill, and strategic negotiation, he consistently delivers favorable results for clients facing serious DUI charges.
Walter also handles personal injury cases, including car accidents, guiding clients through complex claims processes to secure fair compensation while providing professional, compassionate support.
Walter’s legal excellence has earned him numerous accolades, including Rising Star Lawyer (2026), awarded to fewer than 5% of California attorneys, Top 40 Under 40 National Trial Lawyer – Criminal Defense (2024), Top 100 National Black Lawyers – Criminal Defense (2024), and Lawyers of Distinction (2024). These honors reflect his exceptional reputation, trial success, and commitment to his clients.
Walter began his legal career as a judicial law clerk for Circuit Judge Rodney Smith in Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, building a strong foundation in criminal law. He gained early experience handling immigration cases as a student attorney at the University of North Dakota School of Law Immigration Legal Clinic and later managed complex employment- and family-based immigration petitions, including O-1 visas for extraordinary ability clients in the entertainment industry.
With a career defined by results, precision, and relentless advocacy, Walter Shaw continues to be a trusted legal partner for families, drivers facing DUI charges, and personal injury clients across California.
Practice Areas: CPS/Dependency Defense, DUI Defense, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury (Car Accidents)
Service Areas: San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and statewide
Practice areas
Family Law, Criminal Defense: DUI/DWI, Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff, Immigration: ConsumerFocus areas
DUI/DWI, Juvenile Law, Personal Injury - Plaintiff
- 40% Family Law
- 30% Criminal Defense: DUI/DWI
- 20% Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff
- 10% Immigration: Consumer
First Admitted: 2020, California
Professional Webpage: https://www.shaw3lawfirm.com/lawyers/walter-d-shaw-iii/
Bar / Professional Activity
- Mr. Shaw was admitted into the California State Bar on or about May 2020. , 2020
- California
- National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC), Member Since: 2025
- California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA), Member Since: 2025
- National College for DUI Defense (NCDD), Member Since: 2024
Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)
- CPS CASE: IN RE G.L., ET AL: (MOTHER GETS FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES FROM THE JUDGE DESPITE CPS WANTING TO DENY THE MOTHER FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES)(CFS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY):In a recent case handled by Shaw 3 Law Firm, a mother of eight children faced allegations from Child Protective Services (CPS) in California. She was accused of knowingly allowing her daughter to be sexually abused by a sibling, leading to a recommendation for “No Family Reunification” services, which would have prevented her from reuniting with her children. Desperate to reunify with her children but uncertain of the legal steps to take, the mother sought the expertise of Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw promptly took action by scheduling a multi-day trial, during which he presented several witnesses to demonstrate the mother’s commitment to her children’s well-being and her capacity to provide a safe environment. After an extensive trial and a compelling closing argument by Mr. Shaw, the judge granted the mother family reunification services. This decision marked a pivotal step toward reuniting her family. Overwhelmed with emotion, the mother expressed profound gratitude for the opportunity to restore her family unit. This case underscores the importance of legal advocacy in navigating complex CPS allegations and the potential for positive outcomes when a dedicated legal team is involved., 2024
- CPS CASE: IN RE I.R., ET AL (SHAW 3 LAW FIRM DEFEATED A FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE MOTHER AND HELPED GET THE MOTHER FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES):Our client, a mother, was involved in a CPS investigation due to a domestic violence incident in the home. During the investigation, CPS made an additional accusation — claiming the mother had an untreated mental health condition. This claim was made without any supporting evidence and posed a serious threat to the mother’s custodial rights and her ability to reunify with her children. The client contacted Attorney Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm, known for his experience in CPS defense and fighting false allegations. Mr. Shaw immediately stepped in and challenged the mental health accusation in court, arguing that: There was no clinical or documented evidence of any untreated mental health condition; There was no nexus — no connection — between any alleged mental health issue and the reason CPS opened the case; And the claim was an unnecessary and unsupported addition to the investigation. The judge agreed with Attorney Shaw’s arguments and dismissed the mental health allegation entirely. At the same time, Mr. Shaw worked to ensure the client received family reunification services, allowing her to begin the process of reuniting with her children. The overall result:✅ Mental Health Allegation Dismissed✅ Family Reunification Services Secured✅ Ongoing Parental Rights Protected, 2024
- CPS CASE: IN RE E.B., ET AL (SHAW 3 LAW FIRM SUCCESSFULLY HELPED PARENT’S CHILDREN TO BE RETURNED BACK TO PARENT’S CARE AFTER WRONGFUL CPS REMOVAL DUE TO MESSY HOME):Our client, a loving and attentive parent, lived in an ordinary household—like many families, her home experienced occasional clutter and needed some tidying. Unfortunately, a mandatory reporter, a therapist, filed a CPS report for a messy home, triggering a Child Welfare Services investigation. What should have been resolved with a conversation quickly escalated. During the investigation, CPS profiled the family’s diet and housing situation, overstepping boundaries and unfairly concluding that the home posed a risk. Despite no evidence of abuse, neglect, or danger, CPS removed the children solely due to perceived untidiness. Feeling overwhelmed and unsure of what to do next, the client turned to Attorney Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm for help. Attorney Shaw swiftly intervened, representing the client in court. At the second hearing, Mr. Shaw presented compelling arguments that the home environment did not pose a substantial risk of physical or emotional harm to the children. He emphasized the legal standard for child removal and challenged the basis of the CPS actions. Thanks to Attorney Shaw’s aggressive and compassionate advocacy, the court ordered the immediate reunification of the children with their parent., 2025
- IN RE E.H., ET AL (FALSE ALLEGATIONS DISMISSED IN CPS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE — FAMILY REUNITED): Our client was enjoying his birthday at a local restaurant with his partner and their children, having what should have been a joyful day. As with many couples, a minor disagreement occurred between the client and his partner. Unfortunately, the situation unnecessarily escalated, leading to law enforcement being contacted. This resulted in a CPS investigation that included claims of domestic violence and DUI, even though the facts of the situation did not support such serious allegations. At the conclusion of the investigation, CPS made the drastic decision to remove the children from the parents’ care. On top of that, CPS added several false and irrelevant allegations against our client, including a fabricated history of domestic violence, unsupported claims of abuse in a previous relationship, and references to prior unrelated criminal behavior that had no bearing on the current matter. Scared and unsure of where to turn, the client contacted Attorney Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw immediately stepped in, reviewed the case in detail, and began fighting to clear his client’s name. Attorney Shaw successfully challenged and dismissed three major allegations, including the alleged history of domestic violence, the supposed abuse in a past relationship, and references to any unrelated prior criminal issues. He also worked diligently to eliminate and strike unnecessary and prejudicial statements from the CPS reports that should never have been included in the first place. Most importantly, Mr. Shaw was able to obtain family reunification services, which ultimately led to the children being returned to their parent’s care. Our client was relieved and grateful for the outcome. Not only was his name cleared of damaging and false allegations, but his family was made whole again., 2025
- CPS CASE: IN RE C.A., ET AL., (CPS CASE DISMISSED FOR TOP MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WRONGFULLY ACCUSED OF CHILD ABUSE): A highly respected surgical medical practitioner, employed at a prestigious hospital recently ranked among the “Best Hospitals” by U.S. News & World Report for 2024-2025, found her world turned upside down after being wrongfully accused of child abuse. Child Protective Services (CPS) alleged that she intentionally caused a skull fracture to her infant, resulting in the immediate removal of the child from both parents’ custody. Terrified and overwhelmed, our client not only faced the trauma of losing her child but also the threat of losing her license and career due to the seriousness of the abuse allegations. Desperate for experienced legal help, she turned to Top CPS Defense Attorney Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm. Attorney Shaw immediately took control of the situation, conducting a thorough review of the CPS investigation, medical records, and timeline of events. His findings made it clear: There was no credible evidence indicating abuse or neglect by the mother. The incident occurred while the child was in the care of the other parent. The client acted responsibly and immediately upon noticing the injury. Thanks to Attorney Shaw’s aggressive defense and keen legal strategy, the judge found insufficient evidence of abuse, and all allegations against the mother were dismissed. The child was returned, and the client was able to keep her job and reputation intact., 2025
- CPS CASE: IN RE A.M (REUNITING A FATHER WITH HIS DAUGHTER AFTER 10+ YEARS):When our client came to Walter D. Shaw III, he was overwhelmed, confused, and heartbroken. He had not seen his daughter in over ten years—not by choice, but because he had no idea that a Child Protective Services (CPS) case had ever been opened involving the child’s other parent. By the time he learned of the situation, his daughter had been removed from the other parent’s care, and he had no idea where to begin or what rights, if any, he still had. All he wanted was a chance to know his daughter, to be involved, and to build a relationship that time and circumstance had kept from forming. Unsure of the legal steps to take, he retained Walter D. Shaw III, widely regarded as San Bernardino County’s top CPS Defense Attorney. With quality experience and an aggressive, strategic approach, Mr. Shaw immediately stepped in to advocate for the father’s rights. Within a short period, Mr. Shaw succeeded in getting the court to grant visitation rights, despite the client’s long absence from his daughter’s life. Through Mr. Shaw’s skilled representation, the court recognized the father’s sincere desire to reconnect and rebuild the relationship. Mr. Shaw went even further—securing a path to liberalized visitation with the real possibility of full reunification, based on continued progress and involvement., 2025
- CPS CASE: IN RE S.O., ET AL (CASE RESULT: A CAREGIVER MOTION WAS GRANTED TO HAVE RIGHTS IN THE JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASE AS IT RELATES TO HER GRANDCHILDREN): She had been there through it all—the school mornings, the doctor visits, the sleepless nights. For over a year, she had cared for her daughter’s children as if they were her own. But when a Children Family Services (CFS) case in San Bernardino County unfolded, the courtroom told a different story: she had no official voice, no recognized rights, and no say in the decisions shaping his future. Feeling shut out but determined to do right by her grandchildren, she reached out to Walter D. Shaw III at Shaw 3 Law Firm. What followed was a quiet, strategic effort. Mr. Shaw prepared a comprehensive De Facto Parent Motion, laying out the client’s commitment, care, and the reality of her role in the children’s lives. It wasn’t simple. Other parties pushed back. Objections were raised. But Mr. Shaw pressed on, making the case—clearly and powerfully—for why her voice mattered. And in the end, the judge agreed. The motion was granted. She was recognized as a De Facto Parent, which meant, for the first time, she had the right to participate, the right to present evidence, and most importantly, the right to be heard. It didn’t make headlines. There were no dramatic speeches. But for one caregiver who had quietly stood in the gap for the children, it was everything. , 2025
- CPS CASE: IN RE N.L., ET AL (CALIFORNIA CPS CASE CLOSED- MOTHER CLEARED AND AWARDED SOLE PHYSICAL CUSTODY AFTER DUI ALLEGATION WITH CO-PARENT):When the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) opened a case after a DUI incident involving the father of the children, the mother was blindsided. Although she had no knowledge that the father was under the influence or that he had driven with their child in the car, DCFS still initiated a case—despite allowing the children to remain in her care. Knowing how quickly these cases can escalate, the mother immediately retained Top DCFS Defense Attorney Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm, one of the most respected names in DCFS defense and juvenile dependency law in California. Mr. Shaw quickly got to work, gathering evidence that clearly showed the mother had never tolerated nor supported the father’s behavior—in fact, she had taken steps to protect the children and distance herself from the incident. Through strategic advocacy and expert legal guidance, Mr. Shaw was able to get the allegations involving most of the children dismissed. As the case progressed, Mr. Shaw continued to guide the mother through the dependency process, helping her fulfill all necessary requirements and positioning her for the best possible outcome. Thanks to his skilled representation, DCFS closed the case, and the court granted the mother sole physical custody, joint legal custody, and designated her home as the children’s primary residence. Jurisdiction was formally terminated, and the family could finally move forward in peace. The client was relieved and grateful for the outcome—and for the unwavering support she received from Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm., 2025
- CPS VICTORY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT: REUNIFICATION ACHIEVED DESPITE INITIAL ADVERSITY: (IN RE L.C):When the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sustained allegations against a mother for domestic violence and untreated mental health concerns, the odds seemed stacked against her. Despite addressing every concern and making clear, sustained progress, DCFS refused to recommend returning her son—leaving her future as a parent in limbo. That’s when she turned to Top CPS Lawyer Walter Shaw of the Shaw 3 Law Firm—a leading advocate for parents navigating the juvenile dependency system in Los Angeles County. Even with adverse findings already on record, Mr. Shaw built a powerful case for reunification. He presented compelling evidence showing the client had not only completed all court-ordered domestic violence and mental health programs, but had gone above and beyond by voluntarily completing additional services. Mr. Shaw highlighted the strength of the client’s ongoing visitation, which was consistently positive, safe, and nurturing—without any documented concerns. In court, Mr. Shaw skillfully argued that DCFS had failed to meet its burden under applicable dependency law and that the child’s continued removal was no longer justified. His legal advocacy emphasized the client’s transformation and unwavering commitment to her child. The judge agreed. The Court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care, marking a significant victory not just for the client, but for justice and family reunification. The client was overwhelmed with gratitude and joy at the outcome—a moment that validated her hard work and the power of effective legal representation. At Shaw 3 Law Firm, Walter Shaw continues to lead the way in CPS and DCFS cases throughout Los Angeles County, fighting for parents and families who deserve a second chance. This case is a shining example of how focused advocacy, compassion, and the right legal strategy can reunite families—even in the face of difficult beginnings., 2025
- CPS JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASE CLOSED: MOTHER GRANTED SOLE CUSTODY AFTER COMPLETING COURT-ORDERED PLAN: (IN RE A.B,. ET AL):In one of our most inspiring juvenile dependency success stories, a dedicated mother successfully reunified with her children and secured sole legal and sole physical custody after a difficult juvenile dependency case. With the skilled representation of Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm, she navigated the complex child welfare system and demonstrated to the court that she could provide a safe, stable, and loving home for her children. The case originated when the children were removed due to serious concerns, including failure to protect and allegations of abuse by the father. At the time, the mother was emotionally overwhelmed and unsure how to respond to the disclosures made by her children. Her initial reaction was not one of neglect, but of confusion and trauma—a reality many parents face in high-conflict dependency matters. Under the legal guidance of Walter Shaw and the team at Shaw 3 Law Firm, the mother took full responsibility for her role and committed to a comprehensive court-ordered reunification plan. She completed individual therapy, 27 sessions of abuse counseling, parenting education, and a Personal Empowerment Program (PEP). In addition, she enrolled in voluntary parenting courses, including “Love and Logic,” to build more effective parenting tools and emotional communication with her children. Therapists reported that the mother made significant progress in treatment, ultimately acknowledging and believing the abuse, and demonstrating a full understanding of her children’s safety needs. All providers confirmed that she had met her therapeutic goals and presented no safety concerns. After the children were returned to her care, the mother provided a stable, safe, and emotionally supportive environment. She maintained strict boundaries, allowed no unauthorized contact with the father, and ensured the children had structure, support, and access to education and extracurricular activities. The children consistently reported feeling safe and happy in their mother’s home and expressed their wish for the case to close. At the final hearing, Attorney Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm presented a compelling argument for the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction and advocated for Exit Orders granting the mother sole legal and physical custody, with primary residence remaining with her. The Court agreed and issued the orders as requested., 2025
- CPS CASE RESULT: SUCCESSFUL LEGAL ADVOCACY SECURES IMPROVED VISITATION RIGHTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: (IN RE T.V., ET AL):Our client, a successful business owner, faced a challenging Child Protective Services (CPS) case in Los Angeles County that had been ongoing for over six months with limited visitation rights. Frustrated by the stagnant progress and the emotional toll of supervised visitations, he sought expert legal representation from Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm, known for his strong advocacy in Juvenile Dependency cases and CPS matters in Los Angeles. Upon joining the case, Mr. Shaw meticulously prepared for trial, presenting compelling arguments focused on the client’s fitness as a parent and his commitment to reunification. After a thorough trial process, the court granted the client unsupervised visitation with his older child, a significant milestone in the reunification journey. Additionally, the visitation schedule for his other children was substantially increased, reflecting the court’s confidence in the client’s ability to provide a safe and nurturing environment. The client expressed immense satisfaction with the outcome, highlighting the positive impact of having an experienced CPS attorney by his side. He is now optimistic about moving forward toward full reunification with his children, underscoring the importance of skilled legal support in navigating complex Los Angeles County CPS proceedings. This case exemplifies how dedicated legal representation can transform CPS cases, ensuring parental rights are protected while prioritizing the welfare and best interests of the children involved., 2025
- CPS CASE VICTORY- CPS PLACEMENT WIN – CHILD REMOVED BY SOCIAL SERVICES PLACED WITH MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AFTER COURT MOTION: (IN RE K.W):Our client, the mother in this CPS case, faced the heartbreaking removal of her child by the Department of Social Services in San Bernardino County. From the start, she wanted her daughter placed with the maternal grandmother (MGM), but the Department resisted. Determined to protect her family, she turned to her attorney, Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm, who promptly filed a motion with the court requesting placement with the MGM. After strong legal arguments in court, the judge granted the motion, and the child was successfully placed in the care of her grandmother. Both our client and the MGM were overjoyed with the outcome., 2025
- DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION ‘SET ASIDE.’ DRIVER’S LICENSE REINSTATED. CASE DISMISSED. (DUI ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE (APS) HEARING): (DMV v. A.S): The client was stopped by law enforcement for allegedly exceeding the speed limit. Due to perceived bias from the police officer, a DUI investigation was initiated, which concluded that the client had alcohol in their system at or above the legal limit at the time of driving. The client retained Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm to represent them in the DMV DUI hearing. Mr. Shaw engaged an expert to argue that it was improbable the client’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving. The DMV Hearing Officer concurred with this argument, resulting in the reinstatement of the client’s license. Case successfully resolved!, 2024
- CHARGE REDUCED TO WET-RECKLESS DRIVING (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Facing two DUI charges can be daunting, especially for someone who’s never been in trouble before. That’s exactly where our client found himself—scared and in need of legal help. He reached out to DUI Lawyer Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm, who stepped in with confidence. After a thorough evaluation of the case, Mr. Shaw skillfully negotiated with the District Attorney during the very first hearing. The result? The charges were reduced to a Wet Reckless, and the two standard DUI charges were dismissed—without any jail time! The client was thrilled with the outcome, feeling relieved and grateful for Mr. Shaw’s expert representation., 2024
- CHARGE REDUCED TO DISTURBING THE PEACE FROM PC 273a(b) (Willful Cruelty to Child) (PEOPLE Vs. A.O):It was supposed to be a special night for our client, a time to relax and celebrate with her family. She decided to stay at home with her husband, sharing a few drinks to mark the occasion. But as the night went on, things got a little out of hand. Concerned about her behavior, the husband asked their daughter to call 911 for help. In the heat of the moment, our client tried to grab the phone from her daughter to prevent the call—but not with any intention to harm. Unfortunately, the daughter misinterpreted the situation, claiming that her mother was hitting her. When law enforcement arrived, the client was arrested for PC 273a(b) Willful Cruelty to a Child, a charge that, in the client’s mind, seemed far too severe for what happened. She knew her behavior was wrong, but it didn’t rise to the level of cruelty. Realizing she needed help, the client reached out to Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw took on the case, carefully working with the District Attorney’s office. After skilled negotiations, he was able to get the Willful Cruelty to a Child charge dismissed and secured a plea to a much lesser charge of Disturbing the Peace. Even better, the client avoided jail time and any fines or fees. The client was relieved and grateful to move forward with her life, knowing she had the right help when she needed it most., 2024
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23109 (EXHIBITION OF SPEED)(PEOPLE V. J.E): The client was pulled over by local police for allegedly speeding recklessly, facing a misdemeanor charge and the threat of up to 90 days in county jail. In need of help, they reached out to Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw quickly took charge, negotiating with the district attorney, who agreed to dismiss the charges entirely., 2024
- CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550(A) (USE/UNDER INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE) (PEOPLE V. B.M): After a night out with friends, a client was wrongfully harassed by event staff and arrested for being under the influence of drugs. The client was charged for HS 11550(A). Needing a Criminal Defense Lawyer, he turned to Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. At the arraignment hearing, Mr. Shaw successfully had the case dismissed, leaving the client thrilled with the outcome. , 2024
- DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION ‘SET ASIDE.’ DRIVER’S LICENSE REINSTATED. CASE DISMISSED. (DUI ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE (APS) HEARING): (DMV v. A.R): When a client was pulled over for not having her headlights on, law enforcement suspected more than just a simple traffic violation. After profiling the driver, a DUI investigation ensued, and the officers determined her Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) was .08% or higher. With her license on the line, she turned to Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm for expert representation at her DMV DUI hearing. Incredibly, within hours of taking reaching out to the DMV, Mr. Shaw secured a dismissal and reinstated her driver’s license, achieving a swift and successful resolution. Case won, license reinstated!, 2025
- DUI CHARGES DISMISSED & REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS—NO JAIL TIME: (PEOPLE V. A.S): Our client was pulled over for speeding in Riverside County and was suspected of DUI after officers noted an alcohol odor. The arrest included charges under CVC 23152(a) (DUI) and CVC 23152(b) (BAC over .08%). Facing serious consequences, the client reached out to Top DUI Lawyer Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw immediately secured a victory in the DMV hearing, saving the client’s license from suspension. He then reviewed his Criminal DUI Case and determined the DUI charges lacked merit. By presenting evidence that the client’s BAC was under .08% at the time of driving, Mr. Shaw successfully negotiated with the District Attorney to have both DUI charges dismissed. The case was reduced to Wet Reckless Driving, with no jail time. The client was ecstatic with the outcome, grateful for Mr. Shaw’s expert defense that avoided severe DUI penalties., 2025
- DMV LICENSE SUSPENSION VICTORY- DUI ALLEGATION OF DRIVING WITH A .08% OT GREATER DISMISSED AND THE CLIENT’S CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE REINSTATED: Our client, a responsible professional, attended a small Super Bowl gathering where she had a few casual drinks—just like many adults do during social events. Feeling fine to drive and confirmed by her friends that she seemed sober, she chose to head home. On the way, she was involved in a minor car accident on Mountain Avenue in Upland. While the cause of the accident remains unclear, evidence suggested that our client likely had the right of way. Despite there being no obvious signs of impairment, law enforcement at the scene made a snap judgment and confiscated her California driver’s license, issuing her a temporary one and triggering the DMV Administrative Per Se (APS) process—which could result in automatic suspension unless contested within 10 days. Unwilling to accept a license suspension she believed was unjust, our client contacted Attorney Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm to represent her at the DMV hearing. Mr. Shaw promptly set the matter for a DMV/APS Hearing and began preparing her defense. Upon review of the discovery, Mr. Shaw identified a key weakness in the case: there was insufficient evidence proving the client had a BAC of .08% or greater at the time of driving. Not only was there no blood test, but the DMV also attempted to push the hearing without proper notice or legal grounds. Mr. Shaw skillfully challenged the DMV’s case using legal objections, statutory authority, and case law, highlighting the procedural flaws and lack of admissible evidence. His efforts paid off—the DMV Hearing Officer ruled in favor of the client, and her driver’s license was fully reinstated. This case is a strong reminder that being accused of DUI doesn’t mean you’re guilty, and that early, aggressive defense can make all the difference—especially in DMV license suspension matters., 2025
- MISDEMEANOR RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGE DISMISSED– REDUCED TO SIMPLE TRAFFIC INFRACTION: (PEOPLE V. D.S), 2025
- DUI DMV/APS HEARING; ZERO TOLERANCE, ZERO SUSPENSION; LICENSE SAVED AFTER DUI ALLEGATION. LICENSE SUSPENSION REVERSED AFTER SHAW 3 LAW FIRM STEPS IN, 2025
- DUI REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS, NO JAIL TIME: (PEOPLE V. G.V), 2023
- HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION (BAC) LEVEL & SPEEDING DUI IN SAN BERNARDINO – ONE CHARGE DISMISSED, NO JAIL TIME: (PEOPLE V. D.R). , 2025
- Case dismissed. Client was charged with Penal Code 422 (CRIMINAL THREATS): (PEOPLE V. A.S): After extensive litigation and negotiation with the District Attorney, the case was able to be dismissed. , 2023
- CHARGE REDUCED TO DRY RECKLESS DRIVING (PEOPLE Vs. D.F): Client was charged with CVC 23152(G), which is driving while under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. Mr. Shaw took on the case and evaluated the case. After evaluating the case, Mr. Shaw was able to negotiate and reduce the DUI charge to Dry Reckless Driving due to an obvious weakness in the case., 2022
- SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 148.9(A)(FALSELY REPRESENTED ID TO PEACE OFFICER), PC 22610(A) FELON IN POSSESSION OF A STUN GUN: (PEOPLE Vs. A.S): Client was charged with providing false information to the police authorities when she was pulled over. Client was also found with a stun gun in her vehicle. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw evaluated the case and realized there is a constitutional violation of client's rights. Mr. Shaw filed the righteous motion to dismiss the case. The court agreed with the motion and granted the motion. The case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. J.P): Client was being wrongfully accused of hitting his daughter. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and it was revealed that the daughter was not telling the truth on what happen on the day of the incident. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial as he was very confident what the outcome of the case would be. On the day of the trial, the district attorney dismissed the case. , 2023
- SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273A(B)(WILLFUL CRUELTY TO CHILD):(PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was charged with Willful Cruelty to Child. Mr. Shaw noticed the case was not timely filed within the compliance of the speedy trial rights of client. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion/Serna Motion. The court agreed and granted the motion. The case was dismissed. , 2023
- 1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(F)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS): (PEOPLE Vs. F.R): Client was being followed by law enforcement. Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop for speeding. Without Law Enforcement having any additional information besides speeding, law enforcement unlawfully decided to conduct a DUI Investigation. The DUI investigation exceeded the purpose of the stop. The client was arrested and charged with DUI with Drugs. A chemical test revealed the client had at or around 1,000 ng of meth in his system. Mr. Shaw came onto the case and spoke to the client and spoke to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw informed the District Attorney of the weakness of the case and needed to be dismissed. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the case. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress. The court agreed with Mr. Shaw and granted his motion. The whole case was dismissed. , 2024
- 1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 25400(A)(1)(CARRY CONCEALABLE WEAPON IN VEHICLE): (PEOPLE Vs. K.K): Client was unlawfully stopped by Law Enforcement. Upon the illegal stop, Law Enforcement conducted an unlawful search of client's vehicle. Upon the search law enforcement found a gun. Mr. Shaw filed the 1538.5 Motion to Suppress Evidence, which if granted would dismiss the case. The Court agreed that the client was unlawfully searched. The motion was granted. Therefore, the case was dismissed., 2021
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2(A) (DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED DRIVER LICENSE WITH PRIOR DUI CONVICTION): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding having the case dismissed due to the facts of the case. The case was dismissed., 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550(A)(UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was found to be under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. F.P): Client was caught stealing items from a beauty supply store.Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA. Mr. Shaw then provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed., 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23109(A) SPEED CONTEST, CVC 23103 (RECKLESS DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. J.M): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed., 2022
- CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364(A) POSSESSION OF METH PIPE: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C): Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA in the case regarding the facts of the case. The case was dismissed on the first pre-trial. , 2019
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484 (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. I.S): Mr. Shaw Spoke with the client and spoke to the district attorney. The client completed terms that was requested by the district attorney. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 602.1(A) OBSTRUCTING OR INTIMIDATING BUSINESS (PEOPLE Vs. M.L): Client was a former Police Officer. The witnesses at the scene fabricated the case against the client. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/ SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC BATTERY ON PARTNER LEADING TO TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was accused of slapping, hitting and chocking the alleged victim. However, Mr. Shaw noticed the issue with the timeliness of the case being filed. Mr. Shaw filed the motion indicating that there was a Speedy Trial Right violation. The judge agreed. The motion was granted and the case was dismissed., 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2 (DRIVING WITH SUSPENDED DRIVING LICENCE WITH A PRIOR DUI CONVICTION), CVC 22450 (RUNNING A STOP SIGN)(PEOPLE Vs. A.R): Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. M.J): Client was going through a divorce and having a tough time with his life and resulted to using drugs. The use of drugs caused client to steal items from Home Depot. Mr. Shaw pitched court diversion and it was granted with terms. After completion of those terms, the case was dismissed. , 2020
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM). (PEOPLE Vs. S.G). : Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for a civil compromise based on the nature of the facts. Client paid $450 and the case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. P.C): Mr. Shaw pitched a court program to the judge for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client into the program. After the client completed the terms the judge required, the case was dismissed., 2023
- SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 647.6(A)(1) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18: (PEOPLE Vs. H.L): Client was facing a serious crime and also Immigration consequences. Mr. Shaw reviewed the case and filed the necessary motion because the case violated his speedy trial right. The judge agreed. The motion was granted. The case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. A.A): Client was charged with battery. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CHARGE REDUCED TO DISTURBING THE PEACE FROM CVC 23110(A)(THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTOR VEHICLE). (PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was in his car and as he was driving he threw a Monster Energy Drink at another car. The person in the other car got mad and called the police. Client was later arrested and charged. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and explained the case. The charged was then later reduced to disturbing the peace. , 2021
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. T.S): Client was charged with Hit and Run driving. However, client was not the one driving the vehicle. Mr. Shaw explained the case to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 243(E)(1)(BATTERY ON SPOUSE/DOMESTIC BATTERY)(PEOPLE Vs. M.Z): Client was at home with her husband. Husband wanted to have sex with the client but client did not want to. The husband forced himself onto the client, but the client resisted. The client defended herself by pushing and punching the husband to get him away. Client was charged with Battery on a Spouse. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw explained the facts of the case to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 475 (POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT ITEMS). (PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was selling fake Universal Studios ticket and people bought them and realized the tickets were fake. Client was charged with possession of counterfeit items. Mr. Shaw told the District Attorney the weakness in the case. The case was dismissed on the first pretrial hearing. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 2800.1(A)(EVADING THE POLICE). (PEOPLE Vs. J.T): Client was charged for evading the police while driving. Mr. Shaw pitched Judicial Diversion with the judge.The judge required the client to do Traffic Safety Class and Community Service. In 6 months, after all terms were completed, the case was dismissed. , 2019
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. S.V): Client was charged for stealing. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided their office with mitigation. Case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. V.S): Client was charged with using her mother's car and got into a car accident. Client fled the scene of the accident due to her fear of getting in trouble with her mother as well as the police officer. Mr. Shaw explained the story with the District Attorney. We provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The DA agreed. Case dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A) (DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE), CVC 23152(B)(DRIVING WITH A BAC OF .08% OR HIGHER), CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING) (PEOPLE Vs. P.G): Client was charged with Hit and Run and DUI. Client was driving back home from work an event. As he was driving back home to Chino hills, he hit a light pole. There were 2 witnesses who saw client hit the light pole. The two witnesses also saw the client walk away from the client's car hit the light pole. Client's blood alcohol concentration level was almost triple the legal limit. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw realized that the chemical test that was performed was by the a Breath Chemical Test. Mr. Shaw discovered the potential faults in the machine. Mr. Shaw filed necessary motions to invalidate the Breath Chemical Test. Prior to the case going to trial, the District Attorney realized the weakness of the case. Both counts of DUI and the Hit and Run Driving charged was all dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550 (UNDER THE INFLUENCE): PEOPLE V. J.A): Client was charged with being under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CHARGE REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS (PEOPLE Vs. P.S): Client was charged with 2 counts of DUI and driving on a suspended driving license with a prior DUI conviction. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney regarding the weakness in the case. The 2 DUI counts and driving on suspended license was dismissed, and client pled to a lesser charge of Wet Reckless. , 2020
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT)(PEOPLE Vs. M.R): Client stole some items. Client did theft class. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM), PC 166(A)(4)(VIOLATING A PROTECTIVE ORDER): PEOPLE Vs. C.C: Client was charged with going to ex girlfriend house and throwing the ex girlfriend's phone out the window causing it to shatter. The client then ripped the ex girlfriend's ring camera from her door. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts of the case. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): PEOPLE Vs.S.B): Client was charged for kicking a pregnant women. Mr. Shaw pitched a court program for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client to be in the program. After the client completed what she needed to do, the case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. A.R): Client was charged for colliding with another vehicle and leaving the scene. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney for a civil compromise. The case was resolved, which led the case to being dismissed. , 2023
- CHARGE REDUCTION. PC 22210 (POSSESSION OF BILLY, BLACKJACK) , HS 11364(A)(POSSESSION OF METH): (PEOPLE Vs. J.W): Client was charged with having possession of a Billy. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the charge. Client plead to an Infraction of PC 415 (Disturbing the Peace) and dismiss the PC 22210 (Possession of Billy) and HS 11364 (Possession of Meth)., 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with 2 counts of resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge about the case. The client was required to do an Anger Management class. After the client completed the Anger Management class, the case was then dismissed., 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CITY CODE VIOLATION 9.04.090 (CLOSING HOURS FOR PARK): (PEOPLE Vs. D.D): Client was at the park minutes after it was closed. Client was on the way out of the park, but the Police officer detained, and arrested the client for being at the park after hours. Mr. Shaw spoke to the City Attorney. After discussion of the case with the City Attorney, the case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs.A.S): Client was caught damaging someone else's property. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for dismissal after a civil compromise. The DA agreed. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT), HS 11364(A) (POSSESSION OF METH), HS 11364(A): (PEOPLE Vs. T.E): Client was caught stealing but also determined to be under the influence of meth. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT):(PEOPLE Vs. S.R): Client was charged for stealing at a local store. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. M.N): Client was charged for stealing items with a co defendant at Wal-Mart. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge and explained that the Co-Defendent is the main suspect. Mr. Shaw's representation was valid. The case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST) & HS 11550(A) (UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES)PC 243(B) (BATTERY ON PEACE OFFICER): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw realized that on the day of the incident the client was under the influence and could not form the specific intent to commit the violation. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge that the drugs was affecting the client's mindset, preventing him from actually having the intent to commit the crime. The judge agreed. After the client completed the necessary terms requested by the judge, the case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364 (POSSESSION OF METH PIPE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was caught with possession of meth pipe. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney's office for a dismissal due to the nature of the case. The case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) GRAND THEFT:(PEOPLE Vs. J.R): Client was an employee worker for Home Depot and reasonably thought he can use the Home Depot pre-paid card as he did. Home Depot alleged the pre-paid card was used without their permission. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney to explain the case. The case was eventually dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 597(A) CRUELTY TO ANIMAL: (PEOPLE Vs. M.D): Client was charged for killing a possum and thought it was a rat. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney to explain the case and the case was eventually dismissed. , 2023
- CHARGE REDUCTION: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C.): Client was charged with HS 11350 possession of drugs and PC 25400(A)(3)(Carrying a Concealed Weapon). Client was facing a potential felony. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and client pled to a reduced charge of HS 11350. The PC 25400(A)(3) charge was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs J.N.): Client stole gift cards from Amazon and used the gift cards to purchase merchandise. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(G)(FRAUDULENT USE OF CREDIT CARD)& PC 496(A) (RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY): PEOPLE Vs. G.M.: Client received and used someone's else credit card to purchase items. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation. The case to later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): PEOPLE Vs. G.D): Client got into a car accident with the alleged victim. Client was scared and drove away. They did not exchange any information. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw was able to provide mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. G.U): Client stole beauty supplies from Sephora totaling $197. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge for the client to come up with ways to resolve the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the district attorney. The case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED: PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PC 236)(FALSE IMPRISONMENT): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Client was charged with hurting her boyfriend after a heating argument, which led the client to prevent her boyfriend from going anywhere. However, the argument was instigated by the boyfriend causing the client to do what she believes was legally allowed. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts and the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. A.C.): Client was charged with Vandalism. Mr. Shaw spoke to the judge regarding the client partaking in a court program for dismissal called, Judicial Diversion. The judge allowed the client to be admitted. After the client completed the necessary terms, the case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER)(PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. The day of the alleged DUI took place on 2011, but the District Attorney prosecuted the case in 2023. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case and weakness in the case. After the discussion, the case was dismissed. , 2023
- 1538 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER): (PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. Client was at a parking lot arguing with her boyfriend. Boyfriend got mad and called the police and told the police about a domestic violence taking place. Once police arrived, the police determined there was no domestic violence taking place. The police then later decided to unlawfully conduct a DUI Investigation. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress the evidence due to the illegal questioning and/or detention. The judge agreed with Mr. Shaw's argument. Motion was granted and the whole DUI case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): (PEOPLE Vs. A.B.): Client was charged with CVC 20002(A) Hit and Run Driving. Client admitted to hitting the alleged victim's car with his car. After the collision with the victim, the client fled the scene. Eventually the officers found him and arrested him. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and believed the client's story. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial. However, before the case was sent out to go to trial, the case was dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 537(A)(1) (DEFRAUDING IN-KEEPER):(PEOPLE Vs. C.H.): Client was charged with PC 537(A)(1) Defrauding In-keeper. Mr. Shaw explained the conduct was only $35 where the client did not know her credit card would decline. The District Attorney understood the facts of the case and the case was later dismissed. , 2023
- SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 12500 (UNLICENSED DRIVER): (PEOPLE Vs. L.I): Client was charged for driving unlicensed. Mr. Shaw noticed that there was a Speedy Trial Rights violation. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion (Serna). Case was argued and the judge granted the motion, therefore, case being dismissed. , 2023
- CASE DISMISSED. PC 594 (VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. L.C): Client was charged with Vandalism under PC 594. Was able to pitch Judicial Diversion where the client did community service and paid back any deductibles. Case was then dismissed. , 2023
Educational Background
- University of California Riverside - B.A., Political Science Law & Society, 2014
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- If you are currently in a long-distance relationship with your fiancé who is a foreign national living in another country, you can get a K-1 fiancé visa to bring them to the U.S.A so you two can be together.This book walks you through the fiancé visa process IN PLAIN ENGLISH. The book is really short with the intent to give you a straightforward general guide in what to look for and the common pitfalls. The book ensures that you have the necessary roadmap and resources to complete the K-1 visa petition all by yourself without hiring an expensive Immigration Attorney.This book will tell you the general steps and the specific steps when gathering and preparing to do the K-1 Visa. The book will provide you with information on what to expect. The book will show you: 1. What petition is used for the K-1 Visa; 2. What documents are usually gathered and used to support the K-1 Visa; 3. What to expect when your approved petition goes to the National Visa Center (NVC); 4. How to prep the foreign fiancé for the Embassy; 5. What does the Embassy usually request from the foreign fiancé; 6. What documents are usually needed for interview with the Embassy and/or consular officer; 7. What to expect at the interview at the Embassy with the Consular officer; 8. What to do with your approved K-1 visa stamp.This book includes: · Lessons and step by step instruction on the K-1 visa process in PLAIN ENGLISH. The book explains the most common supporting evidence needed to increase your chances of your K-1 visa getting approved. It also explains where to find free resources to get more help through the process.We understand that sometimes, even if you want to get an Immigration Lawyer you may not have the money for one. So let this be your guide in knowing the Secret in getting your K-1 visa approved.Written by an experienced Immigration Attorney, Walter D. Shaw III, based out of California. Mr. Shaw is the proud founder of Shaw 3 Law Firm (S3LF), licensed to practice Immigration Law in all 50 states. He is admitted and a proud member of the country's largest and most prestigious Immigration Lawyers Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Shaw helping several clients with their K-1 Visas prompted him to write this book. Prior to Mr. Shaw starting his own Immigration Law practice, he worked at the University of North Dakota (UND) Immigration Law Clinic, as a Student Attorney. There he found his true calling and passion in helping clients acquire their proper Immigration rights and benefits. He was blessed to acquire valuable experiences helping clients in need of Immigration legal services. Mr. Shaw wishes to continue this journey, but with a strong focus in helping more long-distance international lovers reunify., Author of Book, The Secret in getting your K1 (Fiance) Visa Approved, Amazon and Bookbaby, Immigration, Fiance, Marriage, Green Card, 2022
Honors
- Awarded Lawyers of Distinction, 2024
- The National Black Lawyers is an exclusive, invitation-only association recognizing the top African American attorneys in the country. Walter Shaw was honored as one of the Top 100 National Black Lawyers, a prestigious distinction given to the most successful and influential criminal defense lawyers, selected for their exceptional reputation, peer recognition, and commitment to clients., Awarded Top 100 National Black Lawyers - Criminal Defense Lawyer, THE NATIONAL BLACK LAWYERS TOP 100, 2024
- Walter Shaw was recognized as one of the Top 40 Under 40 Criminal Defense Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers. This prestigious award highlights the nation’s top criminal defense attorneys under 40, chosen for their proven trial success, outstanding reputation, and commitment to clients. Walter Shaw is known for his expertise in criminal defense and consistently delivers exceptional results for his clients., Awarded Top 40 Under 40 National Trial Lawyer - Criminal Defense Lawyer, The National Trial Lawyers, 2024
Selections
1 Year Rising Stars
- Rising Stars: 2026
