Firm Overview
Berens Law Firm, established in 2014, is owned and operated by attorney Mike Berens and located in Seattle, Washington. For over a decade, Berens has served as civilian military defense counsel successfully defending service-members in extremely high-stakes courts-martial in the Puget Sound region and beyond. Berens has also represented service-members and civilian clients alike in administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings before the Merit Systems Protection Board and in courts up and down the west coast.
Trial Advocacy Experience
Proven Attorney and Trusted Advocate with Unmatched Experience Worldwide.
In addition to representing hundreds of clients over two decades, Attorney Berens has several years of experience teaching trial advocacy and military law to uniformed military attorneys across the United States, Europe, and the Pacific. Berens has nearly eight years of professional public speaking experience teaching Air National Guard Airmen military-related legal topics and leadership concepts to enhance military readiness and make the Air National Guard a more formidable force. Today, and since commissioning in the Air National Guard, Berens occasionally supports the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies mission teaching International Human Rights, Domestic Operations, and military law in Rhode Island, Washington State, and throughout the Pacific.
This extensive public speaking and teaching experience is an incredible honor for Berens – building upon the many skills he developed in a wide variety of other roles ranging from service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in rural Zambia to a deployed operational attorney in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This unmatched combination of experiences has also developed Berens’ appreciation for the true meaning of the phrase “to teach is to learn.”
Representative Cases
Mike Berens has a passion for advocating for clients as defense and plaintiff’s counsel.
That is why he has successfully served as an attorney and advocate, litigating on behalf of clients in a multitude of forums. Berens has served on active duty and as a Traditional Guardsman in the U.S. Air Force for two decades. Berens’ experience in and out of uniform makes him a very effective advisor to, and advocate for, his clients.
Berens has prosecuted, defended, and supervised the prosecution of many general and special courts-martial during his career. He has served as a Legal Advisor and Preliminary Hearing Officer in extremely complex and high-stakes cases. Berens has represented and vigorously defended Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, and Navy members facing trial by court-martial and administrative separation. He has advocated for Federal Civil Service employees in administrative law forums.
The following cases represent a few of the many cases Berens has handled in private practice as retained counsel over the past decade alone. The cases identified below are only a few of the many cases where Berens represented an accused servicemember, a defendant, or a plaintiff in a Military Court-Martial, Washington State Court, Federal Court, or other courts. Many of the service members and defendants listed below were exonerated and many of plaintiffs prevailed through civil litigation.
-
Plaintiff (Soldier) v. Corporation (Pierce County Superior Court)
Wrongful Death – premises liabilityAppellant v. Department of the Air Force (Merit Systems Protection Board)
Removal action reversedUnited States v. E-7 (General Court-Martial) USAF
Article 120, UCMJ, Abusive sexual contact
Article 128, UCMJ, Assault
Article 92, UCMJ, Dereliction of dutyUnited States v. E-5 (General Court-Martial) USCG
Article 120, UCMJ, Abusive sexual contact
Article 120, UCMJ, Sexual assault
Article 120, UCMJ, Indecent Viewing
Article 128, UCMJ, Assault
Article 134, UCMJ, Indecent ConductUnited States v. E-4 (General Court-Martial) Army
Article 120, UCMJ, Sexual assault
Article 134, UCMJ, Furnishing Liquor to minor in violation of RCW 66.44.270 (18 U.S.C. 13)Appellant v. Department of the Army (Merit Systems Protection Board)
Removal action reversedUnited States v. O-3 (General Court-Martial) USAF
Article 86, UCMJ, Absence without leave
Article 89, UCMJ, Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer
Article 90, UCMJ, Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful use of controlled substancesUnited States v. E-1 (General Court-Martial) Army
Article 80, UCMJ, Attempted Murder
Article 124, UCMJ, Maiming
Article 128, UCMJ, Aggravated Assault with a dangerous weapon
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Possession of Marijuana
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Use of Marijuana
Article 134, UCMJ, Underage DrinkingUnited States v. E-5 (Special Court-Martial) Army
Article 128, UCMJ, Assault on a Child under the age of 16 (2 specifications)
Article 107, UCMJ, False Official StatementUnited States v. O-6 (Federal District Court)
Reckless DrivingUnited States v. E-3 (General Court-Martial) Army
Article 128, UCMJ, Aggravated Assault with a dangerous weapon (4 specifications)United States v. O-3 (General Court-Martial) USAF
Article 120, UCMJ, Sexual Assault
Article 128, UCMJ, AssaultUnited States v. E-6 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Sexual Assault
Article 128, UCMJ, AssaultUnited States v. E-5 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Sexual Assault
Article 134, UCMJ, Communicating a Threat
Article 128, UCMJ, Assault
Article 80, UCMJ, Attempted Sexual AssaultPlaintiff v. Snohomish County (King County Superior Court)
Wrongful DeathUnited States v. E-3 (General Court-Martial) Army
Article 78, UCMJ, Accessory after the fact – premeditated murder
Article 107, UCMJ, False Official Statement
Article 134, UCMJ, Obstructing Justice
Article 134, UCMJ, Misprison of a serious offenseUnited States v. E-4 (Special Court-Martial)
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful use of a controlled substanceUnited States v. E-4 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, RapePlaintiff v. City of Seattle (King County Superior Court)
Negligent maintenance of property – premises liabilityUnited States v. E-5 (General Court-Martial)
Article 121, UCMJ, Larceny of military property of a value more than $500
Article 92, UCMJ, Violation of General Order 1A
Article 92, UCMJ, Willful Dereliction of Duty (3 specifications)
Article 134, UCMJ, Indecent Acts (9 specifications)State of Washington v. E-6 (Pierce County Superior Court)
Assault Second Degree
Interfering with the Reporting of Domestic ViolenceUnited States v. O-3 (General Court-Martial)
Article 92, UCMJ, Willful Dereliction of Duty
Article 107, UCMJ, False Official StatementUnited States v. E-6 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Wrongful Sexual Contact with a child (2 specifications)
Article 120, UCMJ, Indecent liberties with a childUnited States v. E-3 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Indecent Conduct
Article 134, UCMJ, Voyeurism
Article 134, UCMJ, Possession of Child Pornography
Article 134, UCMJ, Obstruction of JusticeUnited States v. E-4 (General Court-Martial)
Article 134, UCMJ, Possession of Child PornographyUnited States v. E-3 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Aggravated Sexual Assault of a child
Article 134, UCMJ, Possession of Child PornographyUnited States v. E-6 (Special Court-Martial)
Alleged violation of Article 111, UCMJ, Driving under the InfluenceUnited States v. E-3 (Special Court-Martial)
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Use of a Controlled SubstanceUnited States v. E-1 (General Court-Martial)
Article 81, UCMJ, Conspiracy to commit larceny of military property
Article 86, UCMJ, Absent without Leave (2 specifications)
Article 121, UCMJ, Larceny of military property of a value less than $500
Article 134, UCMJ, Breaking RestrictionUnited States v. E-1 (General Court-Martial)
Article 81, UCMJ, Conspiracy to Deliver a Controlled Substance
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Possession of a Controlled Substance
Article 112a, UCMJ, Wrongful Use of a Controlled SubstanceUnited States v. E-4 (General Court-Martial)
Article 92, UCMJ, Violation of a Lawful Order (2 specifications)
Article 120, UCMJ, Indecent Act (with a child)
Article 134, UCMJ, Indecent communication with a childUnited States v. E-1 (Special Court-Martial)
Article 92, UCMJ, Violation of a Lawful Order (2 specifications)
United States v. E-5 (General Court-Martial)
Article 120, UCMJ, Aggravated Sexual AssaultMr. Berens does not guarantee results in any case. Trial outcomes are inherently unpredictable. Mr. Berens does guarantee that he will do his very best to achieve the best outcome possible in every case he accepts.
Visit the client “Testimonials” tab and read what Berens’ former clients have to say for more information.
Why Trust Mike?
Professional – Berens has repeatedly been lauded for his consummate professionalism – and he strives to demonstrate this characteristic in every case he accepts. Prepared – Berens also subscribes to the notion that the attorney who is most prepared often has a unique and distinct advantage. He comes prepared for every hearing. Proud – Berens does his very best in every case to be proud of the outcome – knowing that he did everything he could to secure and deliver the best outcome possible for each client.
Berens brings an unmatched depth of experience, achieved from practicing law and teaching trial advocacy and legal topics all over the world. With two decades of experience advocating on behalf of clients in trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative legal forums, Berens knows what it takes to secure positive outcomes and favorable results for his clients.
Testimonials
★
★
