The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm

The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm A Pasadena trial attorney specializing in personal injury and criminal defense.


The results of a criminal conviction in California can be devastating. A criminal conviction can stay on a person's criminal record for the rest of their lives. A criminal conviction could potentially result in the loss of job and school opportunities during that time, amongst other things. Dismissals under California PC 1203.4, commonly thought of as "Expungements" will not actually mask or remove a conviction from a person's criminal record. They will simply add the equivalent of an asterisk next to it stating that the conviction was dismissed pursuant to that Penal Code section. However, the conviction itself may still be visible to those with access to such records. That is why it is always advisable to fight criminal charges at the outset when there is an open court case in order to obtain the best results possible.


Contact - The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm

As of March 20th, 2016, The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm's El Monte office location is now permanently closed due to fire damage to the structure. Our El Monte location was an integral part of providing our San Gabriel Valley clients with the highest level of personal service and convenience for over a year, and will be missed. However, the firm continues to endeavor to serve our San Gabriel Valley clients out of our Pasadena location.

The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm is also proud to announce the opening of a recently established a new office location in Downtown Los Angeles. This new location will be an opportunity to provide our Los Angeles client base with an even greater level of convenience and personal service.

You can find new address info as well as existing contact information for the firm here:

The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm can be reached by phone or email at: Phone: (626) 710-5463 Email: [email protected] The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm has two convenient office locations in the greater Los Angeles area: Pasadena The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm

Joseph A. Tang is a member of the National College of DUI Defense Attorneys.

Joseph A. Tang is a member of the National College of DUI Defense Attorneys.

Born in 1981 in Pontiac, Michigan, Joseph A. Tang began his legal career after graduating with honors from The University of Illinois College of Law at Urbana-Champaign. During his time at the U of I, Joseph was a member and later editor of the University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology, and…

AB 2124 Assembly Bill - AMENDED

Legal Update: Formal Diversion in LA County

In 2015, a pilot test program for deferment of sentencing for certain misdemeanor offenses was implemented in Los Angeles County. (AB 2124, codified as PC 1001.94).

The crux of the now enacted PC 1001.94 was to give judges the discretion to resolve certain cases using formal pre-trial diversion. Prior to this program, pre-trial diversion could only be granted by the prosecutor after negotiation. Due to that fact, there was non-uniformity in the resolution of identical cases solely based on who the prosecuting agency was. Now the judge has the power as well as the prosecutor. This new law is theorized to help produce a uniformity of outcomes regardless of the prosecuting agency.

As a result of this pilot program, if the prosecutor won't agree to formal diversion, a motion can be made for the court to grant such a resolution. Furthermore, the judge can do so over the objection of the prosecution.




The Police's Failure to Mirandize: Clearing Up A Misconception

I often get the question from clients and potential clients of whether the police's failure to read an arrestee his/her miranda rights at the time of arrest legally invalidates the arrest.... and entitles the arrestee to have his/her case dismissed solely due to that fact, etc., etc. The answer to this question is definitively No.

To understand the answer, you have to first understand the legal remedy. The legal remedy for a miranda violation is the exclusion of the challenged statements (and certain evidence that flowed from those statements, if any) made after arrest. Thus, in a nutshell, the scope of the remedy is limited only to the exclusion of specific evidence. The remedy is a narrow and specific one. It is not so broad as to invalidate the entire arrest solely due to a failure to mirandize.

Most often in a DUI arrest, the police will not mirandize an arrestee. That is because they don't need to, since all the statements they seek to obtain from the arrestee are obtained prior to the arrest. Thus, even if the police fail to mirandize an arrestee there is no real remedy unless the police question an arrestee and seek to use his/her responses to those questions as evidence.

Don't believe everything you see on T.V.



Case Result: October 2014

Client arrested for: Felony domestic battery; Misdemeanor child endangerment.

Case Notes: Client was arrested for choking his wife while she was holding their daughter, and in the presence of their son.

Disposition: After negotiation, Client receives pre-trial diversion. Upon completion of domestic violence classes, the charges against Client will be dismissed.


Case Result: October 2014

Client arrested for: DUI (LA County), and DUI (Orange County).

Case Notes: Client was arrested for DUI in LA County. During the pendency of that case, Client was subsequently arrested for a second DUI in Orange County. A second DUI conviction in California carries minimum mandatory jail time and a significantly harsher DUI school punishment.

Disposition: After negotiation, Client pleads to a Wet/Reckless in LA county. On the same day, Client as pleads to a DUI in Orange County court in that case. As a result of a loophole related to prior convictions and the timing of Client’s pleas, Client does not have to serve the otherwise mandatory jail time, or an additional 15 months of a DUI program.


Case Result: October 2014

Client arrested for: Unlawful gun possession.

Case Notes: Client was arrested for unlawfully having a handgun during a traffic stop.

Disposition: After negotiation, case is dismissed. Client also gets the gun back.


Case Result: November 2014

Client arrested for: Felony narcotics possession for sale, Felony narcotics transportation.

Case Notes: Client was arrested by undercover police attempting to sell a large quantity of Hyrdocodone (AKA Norco, Vicodin).

Disposition: After negotiation, prosecutor dismisses the transportation charge and downgrades the possession for sale and then agrees to give Client DEJ (deferred entry of judgment). The charge and entire case against Client is subsequently dismissed. Client does no jail and suffers no conviction on his criminal record.


Case Result: September 2014

Client arrested for: Felony domestic battery.

Case Notes: Client was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend outside of his home, which was witnessed by a neighbor who called 911.

Disposition: After negotiation, Client receives pre-trial diversion. Upon completion of anger management classes, the charges against Client will be dismissed.


I applaud all the California voters who helped pass Prop 47. For someone who navigates the criminal justice system on a daily basis, in just two days since its enactment, I have already seen it create optimal results in relation to our system's goals of justice and fairness in my cases alone. I hope other states will keep an open mind in considering that the war on drugs and hammering people for petty crimes is in most instances, stupid.



As an attorney, I get such a great feeling when I win contested DMV DUI hearings on the merits for my clients.


MythBusters (2003 season) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Mythbusters, putting a penny in your mouth has been shown to be an unreliable method for fooling a breathalyzer.


The cast of the television series MythBusters perform experiments to verify or debunk urban legends, old wives' tales, and the like. This is a list of the various myths tested on the show as well as the results of the experiments (the myth is Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed).


I am proud to unveil the newly redesigned and updated website for The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm:




FYI - the firm handles traffic ticket cases in courthouses across the San Gabriel Valley and LA county.

Positive results can often be achieved in traffic cases. Such results include: dismissal of your ticket, avoiding or reducing points, reduction of fines, or traffic school (should you wish to resolve it that way).

The reasons for hiring an attorney to beat your ticket are clear: it saves you money; saves you time; saves your insurance premiums from increasing; saves you headaches. Oh yeah, and you win.

These results can be achieved by: burdening the state to prove up your ticket multiple times during the proceedings; postponing your case so that the officer might forget what happened by the time trial rolls around; postponing your case so that the officer might be unavailable by the time trial rolls around, or; negotiating with the officer and/or the court for reduced penalties if the foregoing are not successful.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, the conclusion in most cases will be to get an attorney. If you chose this firm to represent you, you will receive the personal service and the results oriented representation that are the firm's hallmarks. I handle all cases from start to finish.

Call (626) 710-5463 for questions or more information.

- Joe


CASE RESULT - 5/2014

My client arrested for: Felony identity theft

Notes: The degree of financial injury alleged by the alleged victims was in the thousands of dollars range. It is important to note that any identity theft conviction will have severe consequences on a person's ability to find or retain a job. Thus, it is a priority for me in these kinds of cases to prevent or mitigate such potential consequences to my clients.

Result: After negotiation, over the objection of the prosecutor, the court agreed to dismiss the charge through a civil compromise. Civil compromise was subsequently completed, and the identity theft charge against my client was dismissed.


CASE RESULT - 4/2014

My client arrested for: Bench warrant for violating misdemeanor probation, which was issued over 4 years ago.

Notes: Client was convicted of a misdemeanor theft crime over 4 years ago. However, it was alleged that soon thereafter he failed to comply with any of the conditions of his probation and a bench warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest. 4 years later he was arrested, and faced the possible jail sentence from his underlying case, which was up to 1 year in jail.

Result: After negotiation, probation was reinstated with the same original conditions. Client was not sanctioned and no further punishment was ordered.


CASE RESULT - 1/2013

My client arrested for: Felony possession of a controlled substance + enhancement for use of a deadly/dangerous weapon.

Notes: Client accused of unlawfully possessing 30+ vicodin pills, while also being armed with a switchblade. The enhancement for the switchblade would have added on a 1 year jail term to run consecutively to any jail ordered for the pills.

Result: Case dismissed via deferred entry of judgment ("DEJ"). Prosecutor agreed to drop the deadly weapon enhancement so the Client would become eligible for DEJ. After staying out of trouble for a year and obeying all other terms, case was dismissed. Additionally, under the terms of DEJ, Client's arrest for felony possession was erased from his record. In the future, he does not have to acknowledge that he was even arrested at all if asked on job applications and such.

- Joe
Results matter.


CASE RESULT - 4/2014

My client arrested for: Misdemeanor driving on a suspended license b/c of a DUI conviction + a prior misdemeanor conviction for driving on a DUI suspended license on a previous occasion.

Notes: The law requires mandatory jail time in the above scenario if there is a prior conviction for the same thing. Additionally, client was/is unable to obtain a valid driver's license in the future for other unrelated reasons.

Result: Prosecution agrees to drop the charge and strike the prior conviction. Client pleads to just a simple unlicensed driving charge. Jail time avoided; no jail time or community labor. Additionally, client saves around $800 in fines and fees, and the unlicensed driving conviction will not count as a prior if he is charged with the same thing again in the future.

- Joe
Results matter.


CASE RESULT - 2/2014

My client arrested for: Felony corporal injury to spouse/cohabitant

Notes: Client accused of assaulting children's father with a knife. Client called me when she was in jail, and I got her released from jail on her own recognizance instead of her having to pay a $5k bail premium in order to bail out. By retaining me, my attorneys fees paid for themselves and more.

Result: Client's case dismissed on motion. No conviction or penalties.

- Joe
Results matter.


CASE RESULT - 7/2013

My client arrested for: Felony DUI w/ injury + excessive BAC enhancement

Notes: Client accused of driving vehicle into a head on collision with another motorist while under the influence after driving down the wrong way of the freeway at a speed exceeding 50 mph. Both cars totaled. BAC alleged to be .18%. Other motorist suffers numerous injuries including head trauma, broken pelvis, and broken leg.

Result: No contest plea to a standard misdemeanor DUI (without injury). No jail time; 20 days community service in lieu of jail time.

- Joe


Results matter. I am committed to producing results for all my clients, no matter the situation they are facing. I am here to solve my clients' problems. One of the planned uses that I have for this forum is to document results that I have obtained for clients in past cases. These are not a guarantee of results in future cases, but rather just a representation of the work I have done in the past.



Temporary website up. Complete overhaul in progress. Stay tuned.


The TRUST act, which went into effect this past January in California protects certain illegal/undocumented immigrants f...
Bill Text - AB-1081 State government: federal immigration policy enforcement.

The TRUST act, which went into effect this past January in California protects certain illegal/undocumented immigrants from being held by law enforcement on an ICE hold after their release from custody.

Prior to the TRUST act, all illegal/undocumented immigrants could be held for up to 48 hours after their release if ICE (DHS) put a hold on them. Now, only those illegal/undocumented immigrants convicted of violent or serious felonies can be held.

Read the text of the act here:



“I have been arrested and have been put in jail. What should I do now?”

A common mistake that people tend to make after being arrested and detained in custody is to bail out of jail before first speaking with their attorney. Sometimes people will call a bail bondsman to bail them out without ever first considering calling their attorney. This is primarily because most people have never been arrested before and don’t know what to do. It may also be because they do not want to spend any more time in jail than they have to. Wanting to get out of jail ASAP is a completely reasonable reaction, and the correct instinct to have if you are arrested. However, you should always call your attorney before calling the bail bondsman to bail you out. Here is why:

Bail can range into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the crime alleged against you. The premium that bail bondsmen charge is typically 10% of the bail amount. So, if you are arrested for a felony with a $50,000 bail, it will cost you or your loved ones around $5,000 out of pocket. That is $5,000 you will never get back. Thus, the decision on who to call first once you are arrested is an important one, and a potentially expensive one.

An attorney may literally be able to save you thousands of dollars in this situation. Upon notifying your attorney that you have been arrested and placed in custody, your attorney can have a bail hearing set for you. At this hearing your attorney can request what is called “release on own recognizance” (“OR”). This form of release from jail will not cost you any money, and you will only need to promise in writing that you will return to court for future court dates in your case. Sometimes there may be additional conditions attached to OR release, however allow me to reiterate: you will not have to pay the court any money for it. Further, if because of the circumstances of the case or the existence of documented prior behavior or criminal history you will not be granted OR, your attorney can argue for a reduction in bail. Once again, if successful, this may also potentially save you thousands of dollars. If OR is not granted, an attorney will also work with your bondsman to have you released as quickly as possible.

However, there may be situations where bailing out ASAP is a wise decision, and an attorney will be able to counsel you on whether that is the case. If for instance, you are on probation on a prior case but the authorities have not yet discovered that fact, bailing out before they discover it may allow you to stay out of custody when you may not have otherwise. Once again, in addition to the reasons stated above this is a decision that is best ascertained with the assistance of an attorney.

So, if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of being arrested and placed in custody, remember to call your attorney first. Doing so is a wise decision that may allow you to keep your freedom during the pendency of a case, and/or save you thousands of dollars.


350 W. Colorado Blvd, Ste 225
Pasadena, CA

Opening Hours

Monday 09:30 - 17:00
Tuesday 09:30 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:30 - 17:00
Thursday 09:30 - 17:00
Friday 09:30 - 17:00


(626) 710-5463


Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Joseph A. Tang Law Firm:

Nearby law practices

Other Lawyers & Law Firms in Pasadena

Show All