United States District Court, District of Columbia
KHARII W. BRODIE, Plaintiff,
BRENT JACKSON, Defendant
KHARII W. BRODIE, Plaintiff, Pro se, Silver Spring, MD.
For BRENT JACKSON, Defendant: David Drake Hudgins, LEAD ATTORNEY, John E. McIntosh, PRO HAC VICE, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, P.C., Alexandria, VA.
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pro se Plaintiff, Kharii W. Brodie, was convicted of a federal crime. In his criminal appeal and habeas petition, Brodie unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence by arguing that his former criminal attorney, Brent Jackson, had represented him ineffectively. In the instant suit, Brodie alleges that Jackson committed legal malpractice during the course of his representation. The matter is currently before the Court upon consideration of Jackson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which he argues that Brodie's
legal malpractice claims are precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion.
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2004, a grand jury indicted Brodie of wire fraud and conspiring to make false statements to financial institutions to obtain mortgage loans. See United States v. Brodie, Crim. No. 02-190, Second Superseding Indictment [Dkt. #95] at 1. Assistant United States Attorney Katherine Worthington presented the government's evidence to the grand jury. See Amd. Compl. at 2.
In January 2005, a jury found Brodie guilty of the charges in this indictment. See United States v. Brodie, 524 F.3d 259, 261, 390 U.S.App. D.C. 66 (D.C. Cir. 2008). During his trial, Brodie was represented by Attorney Bruce Johnson and prosecuted by AUSA Jonathan Rosen.
After his conviction, Brodie retained Brent Jackson, the defendant in the instant case, to represent him in obtaining post-trial relief and at his sentencing. Specifically, Defendant Jackson agreed to do the following post-trial relief work:
Trial Relief - Due to the fact that this firm is concerned with the representation of the prior attorney during trial, it will be this firm's task to review the entire cause of action to discern whether or not there exists a sufficiency of evidence claim; to review any and all evidence that has not been introduced by his attorney (or review evidence that his trial attorney was not aware of); to converse with witnesses and/or ascertain whether additional witnesses are available; to discern whether or not said statutory sections are appropriate; to file relevant motions with the Court with regard to bond (if appropriate), to set aside the verdict of ...