Timothy M. Barrouk, Esq. Contact

Timothy M. Barrouk, Esq.

Senior Litigation Associate

I have developed an excellent reputation in Central Pennsylvania for successfully representing clients in litigation areas including criminal law and DUI. With over a decade of criminal law experience, I am a strong trial court advocate who is not afraid to fight for my clients. I have tried well in excess of five dozen cases through to verdict, and have set many more for trial - only to have the opposing counsel settle with a favorable pre-trial resolution. I have also successfully argued multiple cases before the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts, including Com. v. Gause, a case that substantially limited the admissibility of police officers observations of impairment in atrial for Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance. In addition, I have successfully fought to reinstate the driving privileges of individuals who refused to submit to chemical testing. At home in the courtroom, I have earned a statewide reputation as one of the state's top cross-examiners of cooperating witnesses (snitches), complaining witnesses (alleged victims), and police officers (especially the State’s forensic DUI experts). I have been named a 2010 Rising Star and a Super Lawyer every year from 2013 until the present, by Super Lawyers, a prestigious nationwide legal association. I frequently give presentations to other attorneys at continuing legal education seminars on DUI. These lectures have included topics such as standardized field sobriety testing, defending against a drug recognition expert, defending DUI controlled substance cases, chemical testing, and general DUI defense strategies. I also frequently lecture in the area of self-defense law. In addition to lecturing, I have stayed on the cutting edge by participating in classes and interactive seminars conducted by nationally renowned experts in criminal law, DUI law, forensic science, and trial advocacy.
Attorney Barrouk offers every client a free consultation to review your DUI, criminal, or family case to provide you with invaluable advice and information.
Attorney Barrouk has rapidly developed a reputation as an attorney who will “roll up his sleeves” and aggressively fight for your rights to the fullest extent of the law. He believes that there is no such thing as an impossible case and has proven that with hard work and dedication, good results closely follow. His professional motto is "Amazing things happen when you declare 'Ready for Trial, Your Honor'."
Attorney Barrouk has represented countless clients on charges ranging from Summary Offenses to First Degree Murder. He has fought many cases for clients charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWI), including multi-kilogram cocaine distribution cases. He has additionally represented clients charged with Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Burglary, Simple Assault, Child Endangerment, Drug Possession, and Underage Drinking, and all categories of DUI.
Like all the attorneys at The McShane Firm, Attorney Barrouk continually attends rigorous, specialized DUI training to ensure the best possible DUI representation. Highly-trained in DUI blood and breath testing, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (roadside DUI tests), and forensic science, Tim has the skill to explain these complex issues to a jury in plain language, making him an unequaled trial advocate. Some highlights of Attorney Barrouk's specialized DUI training include:
Attorney Barrouk is a graduate of Indiana University of Pennsylvania where he was a member of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity. After graduating from Indiana University of Pennsylvania he attended Widener University School of Law focusing his studies in trial advocacy. He spends most of his evenings working to get his clients the best results possible. In his free time, he has served in leadership roles for local political organizations. He is an avid sports fan and enjoys golfing when time permits.
Use the download link to the left to download Attorney Barrouk's resume.

Attorney Barrouk:

  • Holds a current Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) rating as recognized by the USDOT;
  • Instructor rating in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Advanced Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement, Drugs that Impair Driving and Drug Recognition Expert Courses based on the NHTSA curriculum.
  • Been conferred plaques in recognition of attendance at the NCDD Summer Session held at Harvard School of Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts;
  • Passed the proficiency based testing in Advanced Forensic Blood and Urine

DUI Certificates and Training

Seminar Nametags

Other Credits

From Clients

I would highly recommend the McShane Firm to handle any of your DUI or legal case. I would give attorney Tim Barrouk the highest rating as possible, 5 stars wouldn’t be enough. Mr Barrouk is a true professional and he made me feel very confident throughout the entire case. I would also say that paralegal McAdams was great with her informative emails and phone calls concerning court dates and times.
From Google Business

The McShane Firm is the real deal! My experience was excellent over the 3 year process. There is no firm that compares to this team. The McShane Firm is playing on a whole different level. Tim and Cathi were phenomenal with communication and making things easy for me during the process. Tim Barrouk was like a veteran NFL player playing against middle school kids when it comes to the court room, appealing the case, and overall going back and forth with the district attorney’s office in order to get me the best possible result. From day one he understood what was important to me and how much my life depended on a favorable result. If you are ever in legal trouble, save yourself the stress and headache, call this guy from the start. Thank you Tim and Cathi for everything.
From Google Business

Timothy was a pleasure working with for my son If you need a spit fire attorney , he would be the number one man He was up front in the beginning and the whole way through His co worker Kathryn was a absolute unbelievable lawyer as well She said what was needed and got to the point I would hire the Mc Shane law firm in a heart beat and they are a huge hands down lawyers The secretary was always pleasant to talk to They all are professional in every area From a one to five rating they are a number 10 in our eyes Way to go guys !!!!!
From Google Business

I had legal woes! I needed help. A lot was at stake for me. I called the McShane Firm and spoke to Attorney Tim Barrouk. By the time our call ended, I knew a couple things. I called the right place, and the right attorney. Tim and his Paralegal, Cathi Leigh are an unbeatable team! Cathi Leigh made sure that I was well informed, knew where to be and when and kept my anxiety level at a minimum. Tim had a plan and it worked. I received 30 days of probation and had to pay court costs. No fines! Done! I can't tell you the relief I felt! Thanks, Tim and Cathi Leigh!
From Google Business

Tim Barrouk is a great lawyer! He brought my life back to me, not to mention my wife's too. He got me through my charges in Lebanon Co., which is hard to do. I was already on probation and violated with another charge. That was awesome! The other charge was a DUI in another county and he got me off of that one too. Tim has been my lawyer for over 10 years and has gotten us through it all! Cathi Leigh was great too. She was very supportive and informative about everything the entire time. Even through Covid, they never missed a beat! You won't go wrong with these guys. They are worth every dime! Thanks again guys! Aaron and Diana
From Google Business

Attorney Barrouk has no peer reviews at this time.

Commonwealth v. Hajdarevic

Mr. Hajdarevic was stopped after failing to dim his high beams. The officer noted an odor of alcohol and performed field sobriety tests. Mr. Hajdarvic was arrested and taken to Chambersburg hospital for a blood draw. At the trial, the officer testified as to the events of the arrest but failed to testify as to the time of the blood draw. The lab technician who tested the blood testified that the blood sample tube indicated the time that the blood was drawn. At the conclusion of the bench trial, Mr. Hajdarvic was convicted of DUI. Attorney Tim Barrouk appealed on the grounds that the lab technician, who did not witness the blood draw, violated Mr. Hajdarvic’s right to confrontation when she testified to the time of the draw. On appeal, the court found that because the time of the blood draw is an essential element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt requires testimony from someone who actually observed the blood draw, rather than simply allowing the hearsay evidence from the lab technician. As Mr. Hajdarvic’s constitutional rights were violated, the judgment of sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Hajdarevic

Commonwealth v. Fredrick

Mr. Fredrick was observed by police straddling the center line of the highway and was pulled over. The officer stated that he could smell alcohol on the driver's breath and that he had failed all of the field sobriety tests. He was taken to Nason Hospital for blood testing and the report showed a blood alcohol content of 0.226%. The Commonwealth charged Fredrick with a DUI - highest rate of alcohol. After a bench trial, Fredrick was found guilty of the charges against him and was sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months incarceration, plus fines and court costs. Attorney Tim Barrouk of The McShane Firm appealed Fredrick's conviction to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The issue presented was that the sample that was tested was serum and not whole blood and thus by law required a valid conversion factor. The Commonwealth failed on its duty to present a conversion factor. Thus, the court found that "...the evidence was insufficient to establish every element of DUI- highest rate of alcohol." Therefore, the court reversed the previous conviction.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Fredrick

Commonwealth v. Angles

The Defendant was accused of Driving Under the Influence. An Officer followed the Defendant's vehicle and observed the vehicle leave its lane of travel on several occasions. The Officer than performed a traffic stop and had the Defendant perform standard field sobriety tests. The Defendant was then taken Gettysburg Hospital for a blood test. The Gettysburg Hospital blood test stated that the Defendant's Blood Alcohol Concentration was .231%.

At trial, a Jury convicted the Defendant of DUI with a blood alcohol content of above .16%. However, we were able to successfully appeal this verdict and the trial court awarded a new trial. Specifically, the Trial Court held that the weight of the evidence did not support the blood alcohol result.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Angles

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels

This case involved a Petition to Compel the Commonwealth to provide a duplicate copy of a computer hard drive for expert analysis in a child pornography case. Under Federal Law, a duplicate copy of the hard drive will only be provided to an expert to view in the government’s facility. This greatly restricts the expert’s ability to perform a comprehensive analysis of the hard drive because the expert is not able to bring his full reference library and all of his equipment. Additionally, it forces the expert to work with unfamiliar systems. The Court held that Federal Law did not supercede the Pennsylvania Discovery Rules and therefore issued a protective order for our expert to receive the mirror image hard drive and perform comprehensive analysis. This provides the Defendant with the opportunity to fully address the alleged evidence against him.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis

Police received a dispatch from an individual at a movie theater who stated that they saw the Defendant fall over and that there was a bottle of wine under the seat. The caller then followed the Defendant to his vehicle and stated that he appeared intoxicated. The caller then provided the police with the Defendant’s license plate number and make and model of vehicle. Police identified the vehicle and began to follow it. While the police were following the vehicle, the vehicle was observed traveling below the speed limit and touched the yellow line. The Officer candidly testified that she did not witness a violation of the motor vehicle code or driving that would cause her to pull the vehicle over. I was successful in arguing that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant’s vehicle and therefore all evidence acquired after the stop was inadmissible. Specifically, the Caller identity was never disclosed and therefore his tip had to corroborated by the Officer following the vehicle. The Court held that the Officer did not have sufficient independent observations to corroborate the tip and that the stop was not valid.

The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis