Reporting Highlights
・A Record with Both Successes and Failures: Civil rights lawyer Leo Terrell, who heads Trump’s antisemitism task force, has experienced a legal career marked by conflicts with clients and harsh criticisms from judges.
・Unpaid Bills and Tax Obligations: Prior to his abrupt shift towards MAGA, Terrell was struggling with financial issues.
• No “Legal Jargon”: According to current and former lawyers at the Department of Justice, he has criticized staff members who attempt to adhere to the correct protocols for handling civil rights complaints.
These summaries were created by the journalists and editors involved in this report.
When Los Angeles lawyer Leo Terrell, a legal analyst, devoted Democrat, and passionate presence on Fox News,revealed during the network’s “Hannity” programthat he supported Donald Trump in 2020, the MAGA world erupted. Oliver Northpraised him on his “Real American Heroes” podcastFox News hired him as a paid contributor, with a six-figure income.
Terrell, on the other hand, rebranded himself as “Leo 2.0,” including red Trump-style caps heoffered for sale online. Leo 1.0 criticized Trump for associating with white supremacists, attributed an increase in violent attacks against Jews to him, and contributed funds to Democrats. Leo 2.0? He criticized “DEI nonsense,” likened Black Lives Matter to ISIS, and claimed the 2020 election was “stolen from President Trump and America!”
In January, Terrell was recognized for his loyalty as the incoming President Trump,praising himas a “highly respected civil rights lawyer and political commentator” with an “extremely successful professional journey,” he was appointed senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights within the Department of Justice. Terrell took on his prominent position a month later: as leader of the multi-agencyTask Force to Address Anti-Semitic Issues.
As a Black, Christian former Democrat who had not been involved much with Jewish issues before, Terrell, who is now 70, appeared unlikely to be chosen to lead the initiative to “eliminate anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses,” as stated in the task force’s announcement. However, his intense transformation and love for media attention made him an ideal spokesperson for the task force’s real objective: to pressure colleges into removing any sign of “wokeness” from their hiring practices, admissions processes, courses, and research.
In pursuit of that objective, the government hasabandoned due processsupporting media warfare, immediate assertions of guilt, and holds on billions in essential federal funding.
Terrell has emerged as a crucial figure in this remarkable high-stakes campaign. Long before the majority of the task force’s investigations had begun, he openly pledged “massive lawsuits” against “anti-Semitic” universities, such as Harvard, the University of California, and UCLA, among many others.
Thus far, the campaign has proven successful. In order to save hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, Columbia and Brown have reached agreements with the administration that have cost them $220 million and $50 million respectively, and extend well beyond committing to stronger measures against antisemitism.Columbia agreedto make academic programs and admissions decisions subject to external oversight.Brown pledgedto exclude transgender women from single-sex areas and women’s athletic competitions. Harvard has taken legal action against the administration in an attempt to release $2.6 billion in federal research funding, but it is also attempting tonegotiate a settlement. Meanwhile, colleges across the country are removing any remaining traces of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives andshuttering multicultural centersso the government doesn’t target them.
Amid the turmoil that Trump’s task force has contributed to, the history, intentions, and actions of its outspoken leader have remained largely overlooked. ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education spoke with numerous individuals who have had interactions with Terrell, and they examined thousands of pages of court records and financial information connected to his career and personal life.
The image that came forth is significantly different from Trump’s portrayal of Terrell as a “highly respected” and “incredibly successful” lawyer. Colleagues in civil rights law viewed Terrell as a minor figure. Records show a varied legal history, tainted by malpractice complaints, conflicts with clients, and a criminal case that was handled so poorly that a federal appeals court criticized his work as “disappointing.”
Before his shift towards MAGA, Terrell faced numerous financial issues, such as almost $400,000 in unpaid federal taxes, a personal bankruptcy, and a series of court judgments and liens from small businesses that had worked with his law firm.
Current and former attorneys within the Department of Justice state that Terrell is more focused on intimidating universities into compliance than on evaluating cases or reaching settlement agreements. They claim he has openly expressed contempt for what he refers to as “legal jargon,” criticizing career employees who attempt to adhere to proper protocols when handling civil rights complaints.
Although he enjoys media exposure, Terrell hasn’t shared much about his personal life. Acquaintances and locals remember him walking a dog and cycling, as well as his love for golf. In the “about the author” section of a self-published book, he wrote: “In his free time, Mr. Terrell enjoys working. His hobbies are work and working.”
Terrell turned down an interview request for this article and didn’t answer any written inquiries. During a short phone call with a journalist, he stated, “I don’t do interviews about my life.” Upon being informed of some of our findings, he said, “I won’t comment on anything,” and concluded with, “I’m going to hang up politely.”
It remains uncertain if Terrell’s past issues came up during the administrative review for his current position. Representatives from the Department of Justice and the White House did not answer inquiries regarding Terrell’s role or his history.
Jewish activists hold differing views on Terrell’s methods, with some praising his efforts to address anti-Jewish bias that surfaced on college campuses amid pro-Palestinian demonstrations, while others criticize him for using accusations of antisemitism as a tool.
Kenneth Marcus, an official from the Education Department in the first Trump administration who has long advocated for more robust federal measures against campus antisemitism, is a supporter. “What the president has gained with Terrell,” Marcus stated, “is someone who possesses distinctive abilities in conveying public messaging.”
This message is a cover-up, as stated by Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which is a nationwide association of Jewish organizations. “No one should have any mistaken belief that this is focused on protecting Jewish students or faculty,” she mentioned. “Cutting funding for cancer and Alzheimer’s research has no impact on their safety.”
Terrell was raised in Carson, located in southern Los Angeles County, as the fourth of seven children. Law became his second profession after spending ten years teaching history and economics in the Los Angeles public school system. He earned his degree from the UCLA School of Law in 1990 and established his own civil rights law firm in Beverly Hills.
Soon after, Terrell started gaining recognition as a media figure with a clearly liberal perspective, becoming more famous for his television and radio opinions than for his legal accomplishments.
Beginning in 1991, following the police assault of a Black man named Rodney King, Terrell became a frequent presence on local and national TV and radio, speaking out against police violence and racial inequality. Three years later, he secured his first major commentary opportunity: as a friend and advocate of O.J. Simpson. Terrell’s position as a trial analyst for Simpson led to a backstage friendship with Larry Elder, a conservative Black radio host in Los Angeles, who assisted Terrell in obtaining his own talk show. “I thought he was intelligent, energetic, outspoken, and engaging,” Elder remembered. “I believed he would be great on the radio, even though I disagreed with almost everything he represented at that time.”
Terrell was a highly sought-after guest on Fox News. He spoke rapidly and forcefully, expressing every opinion with complete confidence and was quick to interrupt, yell, and confront guests, accusing one of shaping his views “to gain notoriety” and another of attempting “to deceive people for profit.” During an interview on “Hannity,” when asked on air whether Simpson was guilty of murder, Terrell removed his earpiece and stormed out of the studio.
Notable Los Angeles attorneys stated that he was never a major figure in the city’s civil rights movement. Carl Douglas, who was on the Simpson defense team, remarked, “Leo was always a talker,” not “a player.” Connie Rice, former western regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, noted that Terrell “was never involved in the significant cases that had real influence. He enjoyed giving press conferences.”
Terrell advocated for a Black teenager who was removed from a Los Angeles high school after he punched a white referee during a football game, following allegations that the referee used racial slurs against him. He also supported a mentally ill, homeless Black woman who was killed by Los Angeles police officers after she held a 12-inch screwdriver while officers tried to question her about allegedly stealing a shopping cart. (No criminal charges were filed against the officers, but Terrell secured a $975,000 settlement for her family.)
Now dismissive of “woke” practices and allegations of bias, Terrell once defended himself in a racial discrimination lawsuit against a parking company after a garage employee refused to accept his free-parking validation from a mall and claimed he owed $10. A supervisor allowed Terrell to leave without paying, but he still filed a lawsuit, stating he wastargeted because of their raceand seeking compensation for “humiliation, mental suffering, and significant emotional pain.” The lawsuit was eventually resolved with a private settlement. Three decades later, a lawyer representing the parking company described Terrell’s case as “ridiculous — the worst instance of discrimination I have ever encountered.”
Terrell consistently had additional jobs:he self-published a bookon employee rights; he providedbusiness advising, company training workshops, and conflict resolution sessions; he had a 900 numberthat cost $5 for the initial minute and $2 for every extra minute for legal advice.
In 2001, he initially sought a seat in Congress but did not succeed, and then two years later, he ran for the Los Angeles City Council. He consistently presented himself as “an NAACP attorney,” even though the organization stated he had never been employed by them.
William Bloch, a seasoned attorney from Los Angeles who filed two malpractice lawsuits against Terrell, described Terrell as “the carnival barker” who lured clients in but neglected the essential legal work. In one instance involving a sex-discrimination claim, as outlined in the malpractice lawsuit initiated by Bloch, Terrell agreed to a settlement with the city of Beverly Hills for “a small amount,” even though his client, a female police officer, had explicitly instructed him to vigorously pursue her case. Bloch convinced an appellate court to overturn the settlement. Once the officer received a $100,000 payment, along with funds for attorney fees and expenses, she dropped her lawsuit against Terrell. In the second situation, a jail employee from the city of Beverly Hills claimed she paid $6,000 to hire Terrell in 2009 after he “boasted about large verdicts and settlements,” only for him to accept a $1,000 settlement from the city without her consent. According to her complaint, Terrell conducted “minimal or no discovery, including not taking any depositions.” The case was resolved for a confidential sum, with no admission of fault from Terrell.
In legal documents, Terrell rejected any claims of negligence or accountability for harm done to his clients, asserting that they had given their approval for all his actions and stating that attorneys are “not responsible for the outcomes of any professional services.”
“He brings shame to the legal field,” Bloch stated.
A significant setback in Terrell’s legal career started in October 2009, when he was hired by the parents of Emond Logan, a 48-year-old California truck driver accused of transporting over a ton of cocaine to western Michigan as part of a multi-state drug operation.
Terrell seldom handled criminal cases, but he had played Little League baseball with Logan, whose family reached out to him after listening to his radio program. Terrell requesteda $100,000 retainerTo settle the debt, Logan’s father sold a significant portion of his stock that he had held for over 30 years with Pacific Bell Telephone and took out a loan from his daughter.
Logan was confronted with strong evidence: a member of the drug gang had provided testimony against him, and the arresting officers had confiscated five vehicles (including a Maserati), three Rolex watches, and a $125,000 diamond ring, which were far more valuable than what he could have afforded on his truck-driving salary. His appointed attorney had arranged a plea deal that limited Logan’s prison sentence to 10 years.
Nevertheless, Terrell encouraged Logan to reject his “bullshit” deal, as per transcripts of their recorded jailhouse conversations and Logan’s subsequent testimony. Logan took Terrell’s advice, even though prosecutors warned that such favorable terms would no longer be available. Terrell facilitated Logan’s pretrial release on bail. Four months later, Logan was arrested again after a government informant recorded him threatening to kill his federal prosecutor. Terrell then advised him to accept a new plea deal without any limits, and Logan did so.given a 35-year prison sentence.
Terrell didn’t fulfill his obligations for the money,” said Eugene Logan, Emond’s 93-year-old father, during a phone interview. “He claimed he could get him off. If he had accepted the plea deal, he would already be free.
Two courts rejected Emond Logan’s efforts to have his sentence reversed due to Terrell’s legal representation, but they strongly criticized Terrell’s performance as a lawyer. U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney stated in a2017 decisionthat Terrell had given “terrible guidance.” A year later, the6th United States Court of Appealscondemned Terrell’s “poor portrayal” and stated that his general behavior reflected “negatively on the profession.”
Terrell’s legal career faced significant challenges, leading to a growing web of financial difficulties. From 2004 to 2015, the IRS placed 11 liens on him for almost $400,000 in unpaid taxes that dated back to 1997. In October 2010, Terrell applied for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing liabilities of $736,938, assets worth $304,650, and a monthly income of only $4,000. Since he failed to attend mandatory meetings, his bankruptcy case was dismissed, and none of his debts were legally removed. Throughout this time, Terrell obtained six new mortgage loans against his three-bedroom condominium in West LA. The property was eventually sold through foreclosure in 2013.
Lorita Seaton was among the numerous individuals who lent Terrell money without compensation. She provided him with $40,000 in 2008 when he claimed it was necessary to cover expenses related to a discrimination lawsuit against Costco. In return, Terrell signed a promissory note promising to repay her $60,000 by the end of the year. However, according to court documents, by February 2009, Terrell had secured a $422,000 settlement for his client along with an additional $510,818 in legal fees and costs. Despite this, Seaton stated she never received any payment.
He dared to tell me ‘there’s nothing you can do about it,'” she said in an interview. “I want to go up to the mountain and just scream about this jerk.
From 2006 to 2014, over a dozen small suppliers associated with Terrell’s law firm took legal action to recover more than $170,000 in outstanding invoices. A&B Reporting stated that it had created over 30 deposition transcripts for Terrell, charging him more than $40,000 that was still unpaid. As per thecompany’s 2011 lawsuit, Terrell eventually sent a $5,000 check — which was returned unpaid.
In February 2014, as his personal financial situation deteriorated, Terrell officially revised hislaw office address: from the Beverly Hills tower where he had spent over two decades working to a “suite” on Santa Monica Boulevard, which was actually amailbox at a UPS storeHe has only submitted one case in federal court since that year, as reported by PACER, a public database containing court filings and docket information.
Terrell’s financial issues contributed to a long period of legal disputes among his siblings regarding their mother’s care and small inheritance.In a court filing, Terrell’s younger brother Zachary claimed that he repeatedly took money from their mother to support his struggling law practice and maintain his home. Terrell admitted to receiving a $30,000 gift from his mother after he had provided free legal services for her. The estate case concluded in late 2021, but Terrell received very little since he had already taken out loans against his anticipated inheritance. (Deborah Terrell-Trimble was the only Terrell sibling who responded to our calls and emails for comment, but she refused to answer questions about her brother or the case, stating that the family was “trying to heal.”)
Terrell eventually cleared or resolved some of his outstanding debts, but there is no evidence of him settling his taxes with the IRS or many of his other creditors,the legal claims that usually end after 10 years in California unless they’re renewed.
According to publicly filed liens, he still had a debt of $92,000 to the IRS at the start of 2024. However, in the financial disclosure he submitted for his position at the Department of Justice, which covered that time frame, he reported his debts as “none.”
Neither Terrell nor the Justice Department provided a response to inquiries regarding this oversight.
Amid financial challenges both at home and on the job, Terrell experienced a surprising shift in his political views. During a 2019 interview with Fox, he labeled Trump as “a racial divider” and claimed he used “dog whistles” such as “no president on this planet in our country’s history.” Just months later, he fully supported Trump. Shortly after, Fox News employed him as a paid commentator, earning an annual salary of $250,000.
In interviews with Fox and other conservative platforms, Terrell provided two explanations for his shift in ideology. The first was the increasing impact of the Black Lives Matter movement, which he claimed had “taken over” the Democratic Party, referencing radical demands to “defund the police.” He also expressed disagreement with Joe Biden’s statement duringan interview with a Black radio personalityThat ‘if you can’t tell whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black,’ which is ‘offensive and insulting to every African American because we don’t vote as a single group.’
For the next four years, Terrell showed the passion of someone who had undergone a transformation. Biden was an “idiot”; Kamala Harris (whose name he often mispronounced) wasonly selected as his vice presidential candidate”because she’s a woman and because of her ethnicity.” Democrats were considered members of the “anti-Israel” and “pro-Hamas” party. Far-right activist Laura Loomer was described as “a journalist,” while NBC’s Kristen Welker was labeled “a DEI hire.” In 2023, Terrell made a visit to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where heposed poolside, giving a thumbs-up sign. Just before beginning his role in the Justice Department, Terrell made sure he wasn’t overlooking any culture-war issue. “I despise anti-Semitism! I despise attacks on Catholic families! I despise parents exercising their First Amendment rights at school board meetings! I despise sanctuary cities! I despise DEI! I despise Critical Race Theory!”he declared on X.
“I love this guy,” Trump praised, presenting “Leo 2.0” in February during a White House event celebrating Black History Month.. “He was a radical Democrat, he turned into a radical Republican.” Terrell reciprocated the affection, saying to the crowd: “We are in the company of the greatest president of all time!”
What drove him? Larry Elder, who was on air with Terrell as he revealed his change and created the nickname “Leo 2.0,” refused to guess: “I really don’t care why Leo made that complete turnaround. I’m just happy he did it finally!”
Juan Williams, a senior political analyst at Fox News, described the shift in Terrell’s opinions as “performative.” He suggested that Terrell recognized a chance to portray himself as having emerged from a liberal environment, saying, “now I’ve seen the light.” He believed Terrell understood the benefits of that perspective.
If it’s a performance, it’s one that Terrell has maintained at the Department of Justice, where the impact of his aggressive manner and informal approach to the law has concerned long-time employees who are used to adhering to strict guidelines about regulatory procedures.
That’s legal jargon!” Terrell often shouted at Department of Justice attorneys. “I don’t want to hear any legal jargon!
In the days following his January 23 appointment, several individuals reported that Terrell firmly refused attempts by agency veterans to outline the legally mandated procedures for filing civil rights complaints against universities.
“Leo didn’t want to listen to our opinions on how to conduct an investigation, how to identify a violation, or how to handle such cases,” said a long-time employee from the Justice Department who heard Terrell’s remarks. “No ‘legal jargon’ at the Justice Department! It was completely strange.” The lawyer was one of 10 current and former attorneys from the agency’s Civil Rights Division who were interviewed for this article, with most requesting anonymity due to concerns about possible consequences.
During a different meeting early in his time in office, Terrell informed career attorneys at the Justice Department that he believed they were trying to block his plans, as reported by two participants. “He immediately entered and openly stated that he didn’t trust any of us or believe a word we said,” one person remembered.
The Department of Justice’s anti-Semitism task force, comprising representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration, was revealed on February 3. It immediatelyannounced antisemitism investigationsfour medical schools concerning “offensive” pro-Palestinian “symbols and messages” shown by students during their 2024 graduation events. Then, in the following five weeks, the task force and Trump administration revealed plans toinvestigate 10 universities; the “immediate” termination of hundreds of millions in federal funding for Columbia; an inquiry into the entire University of California System; and“potential enforcement actions”against 60 colleges located in 24 states.
It is uncertain if Terrell was involved in selecting the task force’s targets, but he took charge of presenting the government’s argument against them publicly.
“We are taking legal action against each of these universities that are responsible for antisemitism,” Terrellinformed Fox News host Mark LevinOn March 9, “We’re going to bankrupt these universities. We are going to cut off every single federal funding source.” Terrell exclaimed, waving his arms, “antisemitism is widespread throughout the country!” He pledged to file hate-crime charges against “these individuals who despise Jews.” Terrell attributed the antisemitism on campuses to the usual culprits of the MAGA movement: “the Democratic Party” and “blue cities that have abandoned Jewish Americans.”
The academic system in this nation has been taken over by the left,” he stated, “has been taken over by Marxists!
Four days later, the committee revealed intentions the group disclosed strategies the team unveiled proposals the squad announced initiatives the panel outlined plansto convene with leaders from four cities “affected” by campus antisemitism (New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago) to assess if federal involvement was necessary.
Prominent civil rights professionals, some of whom had worked under both Democratic and Republican leaders, were shocked. The Justice Department did not publicly disclose who it was looking into or intended to take legal action against. It did not make conclusions until it had determined there was sufficient evidence from an investigation that usually lasts months or even years. Furthermore, examining Democratic officials in “blue cities” under the guise of combating campus antisemitism went well beyond the department’s responsibilities.
The process is completely reversed,” said Ejaz Baluch, a senior trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division who resigned in May and is now a lecturer at Columbia Law School. “We were given a conclusion and instructed to locate supporting evidence to back it up. It’s essentially using civil rights enforcement as a political instrument. These measures don’t truly address antisemitism. They’re aimed at suppressing political disagreement.” Former civil rights deputy chief Jen Swedish, who spent 15 years at the Justice Department, described the actions as “a cover for targeting higher education.
Back in early February, a company-wide announcement looking for lawyers to join the antisemitism task force received only three volunteers. Harmeet Dhillon, Trump’s appointment as assistant attorney general for civil rights (and one of his previous private attorneys), later spoke at a Federalist Society conferencethat this showed the career staff’s indifference towards antisemitism.
Current and former division attorneys who spoke with ProPublica and The Chronicle expressed concerns about the administration’s methods and were hesitant to collaborate with Terrell, who was already known for his harsh treatment of staff. One individual mentioned that he frequently shouted at her.
A notable episode occurred in March, when Terrell publicly criticized a revered figure.82-year-old civil rights lawyer, Franz Marshalldue to the inability to swiftly end federal supervision in a Louisiana school integration case, which was a priority for Republican state leaders.
Marshall, who had served the government in hundreds of desegregation cases throughout five decades, attempted to clarify that closing the case needed a motion from the school district to revoke the order, which the Justice Department could either back or challenge, followed by a review from a federal judge.
Who informed you that you had to proceed in this manner?” Terrell interjected. “I want you to reveal the names!
This is the method,” Marshall assured him. “I have extensive experience with this.
“Perhaps you’ve been doing this for too long!” Terrell exclaimed. The outburst, which continued for almost an hour, could be heard by several lawyers waiting outside the conference room for an upcoming gathering.
Marshall (who could not be contacted for input) stepped down shortly after, joining awholesale exodusdue to resignations, dismissals, and reassignments, which have amounted to roughly 70% of the Civil Rights Division’s 365 attorneys since January. The Louisiana consent decree was lifted on April 29.
In late April, Terrell called a meeting with some of the remaining lawyers to discuss worries about collaborating with him. “That crazy person you see on TV isn’t here,” he stated, as reported by one participant. “The person in front of you is a civil rights lawyer. There’s an urban legend that I shout and scream. I’ve never raised my voice in my life.”
There is limited proof that Terrell has been directly engaged in discussions with campuses being investigated; rather, these seem to have become more frequent.guided by the White House. Terrell has expressed skepticism towards negotiations, opting instead to “hit them hard with lawsuits,” as he mentioned to Justice Department lawyers during a meeting in April. In mid-July, after news surfaced that the Trump administration was set to announce a deal with Columbia to restore its funding, Terrell questioned if the agreement was sufficiently strong.
“I will not ‘SELLOUT’ Jewish Americans,” heposted on X. “NO DEALS!”
Six days afterward, the administrationrevealed a $221 million agreementalongside Columbia, paving the way for a series of comparable agreements with other universities.
The radical nature of Terrell’s rhetoric does not concern Dov Hikind, a former New York state Democratic assembly member who represents Brooklyn and is the founder of Americans Against Antisemitism. “If Leo Terrell and others are expressing strong views, I don’t lose any sleep over it.”
But the administration’s method concerns other Jewish organizations anderstwhile academic alliesin the battle against antisemitism on college campuses. The task force is “exploiting valid concerns about antisemitism in a manner that is both harmful and inappropriate,” stated Amy Spitalnick, from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. When Terrell claimed on Fox News that the task force would “ruin” the universities being targeted, “they were expressing what was previously unspoken,” she noted.
Regardless of whether Terrell is beneficial or harmful to Jews, his conversion has certainly been advantageous for him. Leo 2.0 now has 2.5 million followers on his personal X account, and his speaking fee ranges between$50,000 and $100,000; his annual salary is $167,603. Terrell has developed “a celebrity status” within the Trump administration, according to Kenneth Marcus, a former Education Department official and anti-Semitism advocate. “People are strongly attracted to him in a manner that exceeds his position within the federal government.”
No indication exists that administration officials, including Terrell, will ease their efforts against higher education. Since late July, despite ongoing discussions with Harvard and the announcement of Brown’s settlement, the administration has halted $108 million in funding to Duke University’s medical system,citing “systemic racial discrimination”in recruitment and admissions. It also suspended over $584 million from UCLA as a penalty for allowing a “hostile atmosphere” for Jews anddemandedA sum of $1 billion to reinstate the flow of government funding. Duke has not made any public comments regarding the discrimination allegations. The president of the University of California, James B. Milliken, has committed to collaborating with the administration, but he mentioned that a $1 billion fine would “completely destroy our nation’s finest public university system.”
Other institutions are merely attempting to avoid the administration’s net — and Terrell’s attention.
“He’s afraid of the strict rules at schools, so everyone is rushing around,” said Brett Sokolow, an attorney and higher education consultant who has been sought out by college and university administrators for guidance.
Terrell’s method, he stated, is “completely excessive—and incredibly effective.”
Doris Burke of ProPublica contributed research.
