Brandon Robinson

This is a false statement in its entirety. I am NOT a part-time lawyer, and never have been, and as the former client knows, history is my avocation but not my primary area of professional interest. This former client posted this review a second time after I caught her lying on Avvo to other lawyers about the advice I provided her, only to try again and post another review, in which she now says that I "bungled" her case and "misinterpreted" statutes. Since this person insists on making false statements--defamation, in fact, for which she can and possibly will be sued--let me lay out the facts more carefully. This client fired me before a hearing on a Small Claims Court case, because I reminded her what I had always told her from the beginning of our engagement--that nonessential damages in landlord-tenant disputes, while capable of being sought in Small Claims Court, are nonetheless within the discretion of the magistrate hearing the case. This client hid from me material facts about what she had already received in compensation from subrogation and insurance, and the first time I learned that she had been compensated for property damage was actually in a phone call from my opposing counsel--not my own client--which my client then admitted when I told her what my opposing counsel had just told me. This former client, not appreciating my honest feedback that there were no guarantees of her winning, hired a second lawyer, who amended the complaint so that he could shape the case according to his own thinking rather than mine (as he had every right to do as successor counsel). Again, my former client hid from her own counsel certain material facts that would have a substantial influence on any similar case in Small Claims Court, and because the opposing counsel's client was more honest and forthright with the facts than my former client was, the former was able to formidably represent his client, and win. My client only likes facts that are on her side, and she willfully and deceitfully conceals such facts from her own lawyers, believing that her victory in court was both a birthright and a guarantee; she is headstrong, incapable of self reflection or humility about the holes in her own case (which I warned her of long before any court date), and theologically convinced in the infallibility of her version of reality. As I now know from hindsight, it was inevitable that this person would lose in court when only one side's lawyer was armed with ALL material facts, and not just the ones favorable to one's case. This former client's loss was of her own making, yet she blames me despite this, and despite the fact that the complaint that was actually argued in court was an amended complaint shaped by the thoughts, analyses and opinions of the second lawyer she hired. Based on my former client's lack of honesty and transparency, no lawyer could have represented her successfully in court, as it shows based on what happened when she hired a lawyer who vastly more experienced than I was, yet the same result. I find that fact to be very interesting here. Finally, as to whether I know the law, ask the other clients who have posted reviews here--a few of which by people I represented in lawsuits where the amount of money at stake was not a few thousand dollars as it was in this former client's case, but in the six and seven figures. This former client is entitled to her own opinions (though not to her own facts or lies, or defamatory statements), but I let my reviews on this site, and my thousands of legal answers on the same, speak for themselves. God bless this former client in her own special, unique way.