Practice Areas

Security Clearance Counseling and Appeals

A security clearance is tied to the ability to earn a livelihood for many residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (DMV) area. Those in public service and service members who defend our country confidently consult and retain Mr. Burke to assist in security clearance eligibility matters. Geoff Burke is a skilled attorney whose understanding of the clearance process was obtained through first hand knowledge, as he held a Top Secret clearance while employed in public service. Mr. Burke uses his knowledge, training, and experience to fight hard to resolve issues so clients may maintain or obtain a Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential security clearance. Read More

Burke Law provides comprehensive security clearance counseling. Often security clearance eligibility issues arise when the applicant submits a SF-86 form without the benefit of speaking with a security clearance lawyer or clearance attorney. As such, Burke Law consults with clients who have questions about completing the SF-86 form. After submission of the SF-86, Burke Law provides instructional guidance to clients before their initial interview which is held before the government commences the security clearance investigation. Some applicants for certain positions are required to successfully complete a polygraph examination and Geoff Burke counsels applicants on processes utilized by federal agencies who administer counterintelligence and full scope / lifestyle polygraph examinations. Additionally, employers throughout the region call on Burke Law to draft legal memoranda and opinions regarding the eligibility of their employees to obtain or retain security clearances.

Upon completion of the clearance form and the clearance investigation on an applicant, the government may be unable to favorably resolve issues surrounding the eligibility of the applicant to hold a clearance. A statement of reasons (SOR) is then issued. Once the SOR is sent to the applicant, due process rights attach. Anyone receiving a SOR should immediately consult a security clearance attorney because there are tight deadlines in which the applicant must respond to the SOR.

After receipt of the SOR, due process rights include the right of the applicant to respond to the SOR and to present evidence at a hearing. Burke Law is hired by clients to mitigate and negate concerns contained within the SOR as quickly as possible. Whenever possible, Geoff Burke quiets concerns raised in the SOR without the need for an adjudicative hearing. Once resolved, the government abandons the SOR after favorable review of the answer submitted by the security clearance attorney representing the security clearance applicant.

When issues cannot be resolved by means of an answer to the SOR, a full evidentiary hearing is required. At a hearing, clients receive effective legal representation from a Burke Law attorney. Evidence is presented to compel the government to conclude the applicant is eligible for a clearance upon mitigation of all concerns. Indeed, when appearing before the Department or Defense, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOD DOHA) or federal administrative agencies, Mr. Burke enlists a host of experts and conducts thorough investigations into the facts and circumstances giving rise to governmental concern that an individual is ineligible to hold a security clearance.

Should you have questions regarding your security clearance application, polygraph, a SOR you received, or a hearing before an agency or DOD DOHA, please contact Geoff Burke for a confidential legal consultation. Mr. Burke is available to represent individuals in the DMV area, throughout the United States, and abroad.


Criminal and Serious Traffic Defense


Virginia Consumer Protection and Lemon Law Cases

In the United States a variety of laws at both the federal and state levels regulate consumer affairs. In Virginia, the state statutes aimed to protect consumers include the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (commonly referred to as the “lemon law”). Among the federal consumer protection statutes are the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Read More

Federal consumer protection laws are mainly enforced through private enforcement in the form of individual lawsuits filed in state or federal court. Yet, the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia may choose to prosecute egregious violations that impact large numbers of individual citizens. While at the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Justice routinely enforce complex and large-scale consumer protection matters.

Burke Law, P.L.C. pursues businesses that deceive and defraud Virginia consumers by false advertising and misrepresentations of their products and who fail to honor warranties covering their products. If you are a consumer who has been deceived by false advertising, who has purchased a vehicle that you consider to be a lemon, who has been the target of unlawful debt collection activities, or who has otherwise suffered a loss at the hands of a business or manufacturer, please contact Burke Law for a free initial consultation.


Local Counsel

The Eastern District of Virginia is known as the “Rocket Docket” because the average time from filing a civil case to trial is only 11 months. Parties litigating here understand that speed is the number one factor to consider when litigating in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). For example, discovery is typically completed in less than three months. Read More

When litigating as a foreign attorney, each foreign attorney admitted to practice in the EDVA must be mindful of Local Rule 83.1(D)(b) which provides that the foreign attorney “shall be accompanied by a member of the bar of this Court in all appearances before this Court.” Further still, Local Rule 83.1(F) states that “any counsel presenting papers suits, pleadings . . . must have counsel who are members of the bar of this Court to join in the pleading by endorsement . . . At least one [member of the bar of this Court] must personally be present at all hearings, pretrials, and trials.” Any foreign attorney is encouraged to contact Geoff Burke to discuss associating with him as local counsel when litigating before the EDVA, Alexandria Division pro hac vice.