Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Grim Tidings for Government Contractors | Main | The Morning Wrap »

May 10, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20168eb6ac6f0970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference D.C. Man Convicted of Unauthorized Practice of Law for Two Decades:

Comments

G.D. Holcombe

In response to Tyrone Jackson's post: (A)He was probably let off for as long as he was precisely because he was black--it was an advantage to have the authorities worried about being accused of racial bais, which is exactly what the defendant did; and (B) perhaps he wasn't accused of fraud because there was no harm to anyone; i.e., maybe he got good results for his clients? (I know plenty of smart non-lawyers I'd rather have represent me than some bozos who managed to pass the bar, but can't practice law competently to save their lives.)

TOM F

Is HE A LAWYER OR not???

Max

Zoe Tillman's portrayal of a 20 year case is a gross misrepresentation of the events that have essentially transpired. Mr. Brookens is an attorney, and his work in the district began before the laws had changed. One should take the time to read into the full story.

MarkinArizona

I'd say it's likely that they may have LET HIM SLIDE because of his color. It's not like he didn't know what he should have done. In two decades he could have gone to law school six times.

John

they would follow a white man for so long, I agree with Brooks.

Tyrone Jackson

Yes, of course he's being prosecuted because he's black. Everyone knows that if you are black, you are supposed to be able to misrepresent yourself as an attorney. My only question is why is he not being prosecuted for fraud? If he's "maintained an office in Washington starting in the late 1970s", that implies he's been taking money from people who thought they were hiring a real lawyer, not a fake one.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements