Brad is a detail oriented and strategic defense litigator who aims at directing his client's cases toward beneficial outcomes from the very start of their cases.  When first approaching a case the goal is to seek dismissal or a not guilty verdict.  If this is not possible, then Brad uses the technicalities of the law and facts of the case to steer it in a direction that will either allow the client to remain free or limit their liability.  Brad steps back from every case to look at the big picture and seek what options and defenses are available, both inside and outside the box. 

Brad has spent time developing respectful, honest, and straight forward relationships with Judges, prosecutors, and other attorneys.  These relationships assist him in negotiating beneficial outcomes for his clients, and also in having opposing prosecutors and attorneys know when he is ready to take a case to the limit to win. 

As a college athlete, Brad is naturally competitive.  Through college he had to work hard to develop skills to win, even when those skills were not naturally there.  Brad has carried this devotion, hard work, and competitive edge into his cases and the courtrooms.  But at the same time, he recognizes, its not about him, its about using those attributes to help his client and get them where they need to be in their current situation and in life.

In many criminal matters, Brad's clients don't have anyone else to stand by their side.  When these times come, Brad is right there, standing up for his client and being an honest face for them to talk to.  Brad maintains a real relationship with his clients, always calling them back, and always being transparent in his representation so that they know exactly where they stand during the entire legal process. 

Brad is calm and comfortable in the courtroom which helps ease client's fears.  He's not fearful or nervous about taking a case to trial as he's argued murder, rape, and robbery cases before Judges and Juries.  Brad also argued a case challenging sex offender residency restrictions before the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2008.