ATTORNEY ON CALL · 24/7
212 300 5196
3 MIN READ · REVIEWED BY TODD A. SPODEK
SNAP VIOLATION DEFENSE · BALTIMORE
RETAIL STORES · EBT / SNAP

Baltimore SNAP Violation Attorneys.

FNS retailer cases are federal - the same charge letters, deadlines, and appeal rights apply in every state. Here is how the process works, and where counsel changes the outcome.

Todd A. Spodek
Todd A. Spodek
MANAGING PARTNER · SPODEK LAW GROUP
212 300 5196 · 24/7
★★★★★1,100+ FIVE-STAR GOOGLE REVIEWS
SUPER LAWYERS · 2020-25AVVO · “SUPERB”SECOND GENERATION · SINCE 1976
AS SEEN ON NETFLIX · CNN · FOX NEWS · NY POST
NETFLIX · 2022 · CREATED BY SHONDA RHIMES

Netflix told the story. The defense was ours.

When Shonda Rhimes built Inventing Anna, the defense at its center was Todd Spodek’s - argued for the so-called fake heiress in a Manhattan courtroom long before Arian Moayed of Succession played him on screen. What 320 million hours of viewers watched is the method every client of this firm gets - including the store owner with a charge letter on the counter.

“Just like Sinatra had to do it his way, Anna had to do it her way.
TODD’S OPENING STATEMENT · THE SOROKIN TRIAL, 2019
#1
MOST WATCHED ON NETFLIX
196
COUNTRIES STREAMING
320M+
HOURS VIEWED
Open the Anna Delvey file →
THE OFFICIAL TRAILER · INVENTING ANNA
TODD PORTRAYED BY ARIAN MOAYED

The record behind the retainer.

PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME
FEDERAL Acquitted. $26M money laundering - complete acquittal at trial
FEDERAL Dismissed. RICO - client faced a 10-year mandatory minimum
2022 · NYT / AP Never charged. Juror 50, U.S. v. Maxwell - testified under immunity; verdict preserved
2024 · S.D.N.Y. Six months. $12M federal Ponzi - prosecutors asked for years
2022 · ESPN No prison. Ex-NBA player, $4M healthcare fraud - no additional time
2023-25 · FEDERAL Lead defense. Three major crypto prosecutions, incl. the $16M Coinbase phishing case
THE FULL RECORD, EVERY ENTRY SOURCED →
RECOGNITIONS
Super Lawyers
2020 - 2025
Avvo rating
“SUPERB”
Rising Stars
2016 - 2019

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is the flagship anti-poverty measure in the United States. Although the program's forbears were first enacted all the way back in the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, it wasn't until 1964, under Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty initiative, that the program began taking its current form.

Today, the SNAP program has successfully kept tens of millions of Americans, particularly children, from experiencing the worst consequences of poverty and food deprivation. As a result, almost no children in America suffer from the kinds of severe malnutrition that mark so many third world countries. This has been a proud achievement within the United States and represents one of the greatest progressive victories of the 20th century.

However, the fact that nearly $100 billion is spent each year by the federal government on SNAP benefits that affect more than 40 million Americans means that the government takes the protection of the program with the utmost seriousness. While fraud and abuse of the SNAP program, particularly its modern Electronic Benefits Transaction system, have been on the decline over the last few decades, the corresponding enforcement actions have caught many innocent store owners in the net.

Innocent mistakes don't necessarily make you innocent

If you are a convenience store or grocery store owner in the United States today, it is nearly certain that you are a participant in the SNAP program. The program constitutes such a significant percentage of all food bought in the United States every year that it would be nearly impossible for store owners, especially those located in urban areas, to be able to stay in business without SNAP eligibility.

One of the largest problems that these SNAP-eligible store owners face is the fact that they are held responsible by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the government agency that administers the SNAP program, for everything that happens in their stores. This means that each SNAP-eligible store owner is 100 percent liable for training each employee on their payroll all of the rules and regulations of the SNAP program and ensuring that no violations take place. This is hard enough when employees are well-intentioned. It becomes impossible when employees are actively seeking to violate the rules of the program for their own benefit.

If you have been accused of a violation of the SNAP program rules due to the actions of an employee, it is crucial that you get in touch with a lawyer experienced in welfare law who can help you maximize your chances of a successful outcome. Once you have received a letter from the USDA alleging violations of the food stamp program, the burden of proof is on you. There is no presumption of innocence. If you do not comply with all of the requirements of the investigation process, your store will be denied access to the food stamp program and all future EBT transactions within your store will be declined. For many store owners, such an outcome would spell doom for their business.

But with the right lawyer, it is possible to fight USDA violation notices and stave off the consequences to you and your business. It is critical to understand that there is a great deal at stake. Depending on the type of SNAP violation of which you are accused, you could be facing penalties ranging from a business-killing dismissal from the SNAP program all the way up to 25 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and restitution. And it is important for business owners to understand that they can be help personally liable for the actions of their employees when it comes to SNAP program violations.

Welfare law, in general, and food assistance law, in particular, are both highly unique and very complex areas of legal practice. It is crucial that you get a lawyer fighting on your side who has the knowledge and experienced to maximize the chances of a favorable outcome when fighting the USDA, the FNS and the court systems in the context of SNAP abuse or fraud accusations.

Our lawyers have hundreds of successfully resolved cases under their belts. Most of the cases we handle never go to trial and are dismissed at the administrative level. If you find yourself the focus of a USDA investigation, call us today.

Facing a SNAP charge letter or disqualification? Start with our full guide: USDA SNAP Violation Lawyers for Retail Stores, or call 212-300-5196 for an attorney, 24/7.

LEGAL INFORMATION, NOT LEGAL ADVICE · STATUTES CHANGE - VERIFY CURRENT LAW · ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
IF A LETTER FROM FNS IS ON THE COUNTER
The response window is 10 days - and the strongest option expires with it.
WHO REVIEWS THE FIRST CALL

A second-generation firm. A senior partner's cell number.

Spodek Law Group has defended people and businesses against the federal government since 1976. SNAP retailer matters are handled the way the firm handles every federal case: the evidence gets read before anything is filed, deadlines get calendared on day one, and clients deal with counsel - not a call center.

50.
YEARS · TWO GENERATIONS
1,100+.
FIVE-STAR GOOGLE REVIEWS
24/7.
A PERSON ANSWERS · NOT A SERVICE
Todd A. Spodek, Managing Partner
TODD A. SPODEK · MANAGING PARTNERSUPER LAWYERS 2020-25
★★★★★VERIFIED CLIENT · FEDERAL CASE · 2022 · VIA GOOGLE REVIEWS
"By the time our free consultation was over, we left at ease."
1,100+ FIVE-STAR GOOGLE REVIEWS →
SECURE CONSULTATION REQUEST

Reading is good. Calling is better.

Tell us what arrived and when. The intake team will identify conflicts and the right next step. If a deadline runs this week, call.

212 300 5196
AFTER YOU REACH OUT
01A person answers - not a service. Day or night. 02We confirm the delivery date and calendar every deadline on the file. 03If the firm can take the matter, the evidence work starts the same day.
★★★★★1,100+ FIVE-STAR GOOGLE REVIEWS
READ THEM →
INTAKE · CONFLICT CHECK REQUIRED
CALL FOR URGENT DEADLINES
01
02
03
04
THE 10-DAY CLOCK RUNS FROM DELIVERY, NOT FROM WHEN THE LETTER IS OPENED OR CALL 212 300 5196
SUBMITTING THIS FORM DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. THE FIRM MUST FIRST COMPLETE A CONFLICT CHECK AND AGREE TO THE REPRESENTATION.