Beverly Barber did legal work for her client, Danny Mitchell, who she said stiffed her. She filed a lis pendens, or a notice attached to a property that a lawsuit was coming.
Mitchell claimed this cost him a sale and sued. Now, Beverly, who never got paid for that legal work, owes Mitchell $2 million.
I’ve previously interviewed Alabama attorney Beverly Barber twice, and with every interview, Beverly has disclosed more shocking information about this case.
In previous episodes, Beverly described how the trial judge, Javan Patton, disallowed a key witness- the buyer.
The buyer would have testified that he backed out of the deal because the property failed inspection and not because of the lis pendens. Another witness refused to testify because they were threatened and Patton did nothing, Beverly told me previously.
Patton also disallowed notes and even ordered Beverly to disclose attorney client privileged information.
That’s not all that Judge Patton did.
Judge Patton refused to allow Beverly to have pencil and paper during the trial, even though Mr. Robinson did have it. The judge even refused to allow Beverly to have a court reporter read back testimony.
In fact, Beverly said that Judge Patton didn’t allow any of her witnesses, and she even argues in a motion that her email was compromised.
More recently, Beverly learned that Judge Patton never even tried to hold a jury trial on damages for the case.
Also, one of her witnesses was given a mirror website which did not go to the Alabama court website.
That witness also did not testify, Beverly told me. Most troubling, the clerk’s office told Beverly that Judge Patton brought some evidence home with her.
Despite all this, Beverly faces Alabama bar discipline. Following a complaint from opposing counsel, Beverly faces discipline for filing frivolous filings and other alleged malfeasance. She said a key ruling from an appeal’s court occurred on the day before her bar disciplinary hearing.
She told me that she is facing a six-month suspension and two years of probation. Fortunately, her license remains in good standing while that is appealed. {There are a lot of competing appeals in this case.} Here’s what the Alabama bar sent me.
Beverly said that she repeatedly tried to get Judge Patton recused without success, and this was one of the things cited as frivolous. Given Judge Patton’s behavior, Beverly had good reason.
At the end, I noted that Beverly is a solo practitioner. Michelle MacDonald, who faced bar discipline in Minnesota, is also a solo practitioner.
Michelle described how a telephonic conference led to an order where neither parent could see their child as having “no process” and this was enough to have her license indefinitely suspended for “impugning the integrity of a judge.”
Bruce Matzkin is facing bar discipline in Connecticut because his billing statement was purportedly too vague.
The bar disciplinary process is not applied equally, in my opinion. Solo practitioners and boutique firms are often targeted for minor and made-up offenses- especially when they are whistleblowing attorneys- while Big Law is almost never punished.
Share this post