In April 2025, K. Merchant Laq successfully overturned a summary suspension of a professional driver's license imposed by the City of Seattle, restoring the client's ability to work and earn a living. The City had summarily suspended the license without first identifying any specific regulatory violation that authorized suspension and without demonstrating the heightened legal standard required for immediate action — namely, a "clear, substantial, and imminent hazard to life, safety, or property." At an expedited de novo hearing, the Hearing Examiner agreed. The decision found that the City relied almost entirely on unsworn, unidentified witness statements and hearsay accounts gathered after the suspension was already imposed. Critical video evidence was incomplete and lacked any foundation confirming its accuracy, and the City failed to meaningfully investigate exculpatory facts before depriving the client of his livelihood. The Examiner emphasized that summary suspension is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be justified without both a valid statutory basis and reliable evidence. Because the City failed to meet its burden of proof on either requirement, the Hearing Examiner reversed the suspension in full and ordered the license immediately reinstated. The ruling reaffirmed that administrative agencies must follow the law and respect due process — especially when a person's ability to work is on the line.

K. Merchant Laq successfully defended a client charged with Murder in the Second Degree after exposing fundamental flaws in the State's theory and demonstrating that law enforcement had charged the wrong person.

At trial, the defense established that the client was inside the home with family members at the time of the shooting, while the fatal gunshot occurred outside. The State's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of a single, compromised witness, despite the absence of physical evidence, forensic proof, eyewitness corroboration, or any identified weapon tying the client to the crime. No firearm was ever recovered, no DNA or fingerprints linked the client to the shooting, and multiple witnesses could not place the client at the scene when the shot was fired.

After hearing the evidence, 11 out of 12 jurors agreed that someone else shot the decedent, resulting in a hung jury rather than an outright conviction. Faced with the collapse of its case and the prospect of acquittal at retrial, the State declined to proceed further.

The matter was resolved with a no-contest plea that imposed no additional jail time, bringing the case to a close without parole exposure after the client had already endured nearly two years of pretrial incarceration.

The outcome reflects what careful trial preparation and rigorous defense work can accomplish — preventing a wrongful conviction and sparing an innocent person from a life-altering sentence.

K. Merchant Laq successfully defended a high school student who was wrongfully accused by another student seeking a no-contact order following a fight on campus.

Although the school took no disciplinary action, the opposing student attempted to use the court system to obtain a no-contact order that would have effectively forced the client out of their own high school, since both students attended the same campus. Granting the order would have disrupted the client's education despite the absence of any finding that the client was the aggressor.

At the hearing, Karim Merchant demonstrated that the allegations were unfounded and that the other student was, in fact, the aggressor. The court denied the no-contact order, preserving the client's right to remain enrolled. As a consequence of the ruling, the opposing student was required to transfer schools, not the client.

The result protected the client's education, record, and stability — and prevented the misuse of a no-contact order as a weapon rather than a shield.

K. Merchant Laq secured dismissal of a serious felony assault case after a guilty plea had already been entered — a rare and difficult procedural posture.

The client had previously pled guilty to Assault in the Second Degree and was awaiting sentencing when new defense counsel moved to withdraw the plea. Through focused post-plea litigation, K. Merchant Laq demonstrated that the plea was unconstitutional and void as a matter of law – the Court agreed. The plea was vacated, and after subsequent defense investigation, it became evident that that the alleged victim fabricated the allegations and had significant credibility problems that were unknown at the time of the plea.

Once those issues were brought to light, the State was unable to proceed. The prosecutor had no choice but to dismiss the case in its entirety, eliminating the risk of a lengthy prison sentence and permanent felony if convicted at trial.

This result underscores the importance of aggressive advocacy even after a plea has been entered — and the reality that convictions are not inevitable when the facts don't hold up.

Mr. Merchant obtained a dismissal with prejudice in a case involving some of the most serious charges under Washington law — Kidnapping in the First Degree, Rape in the First Degree, and Assault in the Second Degree — where the client faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years.

From the outset, the defense conducted an intensive pretrial investigation and trial preparation, focusing on credibility, motive, and the surrounding circumstances of the allegations. Through comprehensive briefing and evidentiary analysis, the defense demonstrated that the alleged encounter was consensual, that the complaining witness was present voluntarily, and that the accusations were fabricated to avoid personal consequences. The defense further established a documented pattern of similar false allegations made under comparable circumstances.

As trial approached, the State acknowledged it was no longer in contact with the complaining witness and could not proceed. Given the defense's readiness for trial and the overwhelming weaknesses in the prosecution's case, the court did not merely dismiss the charges — it dismissed the case with prejudice, permanently barring reprosecution.

The outcome spared the client from decades of incarceration and reaffirmed a core principle of the justice system: when allegations collapse under scrutiny and the State cannot meet its burden, the case must end.

Mr. Merchant secured dismissal a drive-by shooting charge on the eve of trial after the state conceded it could not convict at trial.

The client was wrongfully accused of firing shots at an ex-girlfriend — an allegation carrying severe felony exposure and long-term consequences. Through targeted pretrial briefing, the defense was prepared to expose critical evidentiary weaknesses in the prosecution's case, dismissed in its entirety, sparing the client from trial, lengthy prison sentence, and a permanent felony conviction.

The result reflects the importance aggressive defense advocacy — particularly in emotionally charged cases where the stakes are high.