Source: http://www.bartleybabcock.com/testimonials/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:50:50+00:00

Document:
I represented a tenant who was being evicted for non payment of rent. He owed 4 months of rent and therefore he was not legally entitled to any relocation money. After conducting discovery and working up the unlawful detainer case and finding numerous affirmative defenses to the case, such as failure by the landlord to register the apartments with the city, and pay the annual rent registry and code enforcement fees, I convinced the landlord to pay $17,000 to the tenant on the day of trial in the unlawful detainer case because they had a terrible case with many holes in it and they knew that we were ready for trial and that there was a good chance they would lose and the "trouble maker"/"ringleader" tenant would be able to live at the apartment for the remainder of his life. Tenant was not "qualified" under the rent control laws in L.A. and was not even entitled to any relocation money because he was at fault. Oh, in addition to the $17,000, I also got the landlord to agree in writing to forgive the 4 months rent he owed, saving the client an additional $5,000. Not a bad day in court for a client who put his foot down and refused to pay rent.
Tenant wanted to terminate her lease so that she could start a new life for herself in Europe. There really was no legal grounds to terminate the lease until I became creative and found a way out. Landlord lied directly to my client about a material condition of the property which caused my client to sign the lease. But for those lies, my client would not have signed the lease. That's fraud. Client moved in and discovered horrid conditions that deeply disturbed her right to quiet enjoyment and to live peacefully and comfortably in her apartment. Landlord threatened to sue for the rent remaining on the entire contract, which was around $50,000. I pointed out, through a few polite phone calls and a letter, that his actions were unreasonable. One can't demand rent when one has known about substantial defects that have a material affect on the value or desirability of property for a long period of time and subsequently failing to act as a reasonable person. Time to mitigate your damages! The landlord, here, was under a duty to reduce his financial losses by finding a new tenant by placing "for rent" advertisements. If the landlord fails to 'mitigate' his damages, then he cannot can't successfully sue the former tenant for anything.
"Eviction case dismissed with Prejudice."
Mr. Babcock convinces the landlord that their eviction lawsuit against Mr. Babcock's client gives rise for Mr. Babcock and his client to sue the landlord in civil court for monetary damages for wrongful eviction, retaliatory eviction, violation of the LA Rent Stabilization Ordinance, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress thus opening the door to get punitive damages. At trial, landlord begrudgingly dismisses the case WITH prejudice. My client was an alleged "ringleader" and stirred up controversy with property management and other tenants by filing complaints about poor conditions at his apartment and exercising her legal rights under the Civil Code. Exercise your rights! Be a "ringleader"! Go ahead and get on your landlord's radar by taking advantage of your right to live in a peaceful and clean apartment. I didn't know it was a crime to tell the owner of an apartment that you do not want live in a mold/rat/cockroach infested unit.
"Default judgment against my client "set aside" by the Judge and case dismissed with prejudice"
In another unlawful detainer case where I was representing the Tenant, my client had lost the case by the time he hired me because the landlord entered a "default" judgment against him. This is happens when landlord's lie and claim they properly served the tenant with a lawsuit when in fact they did not. In this case, landlord said they personally served my client, however, at an evidentiary hearing in court we put on undisputed facts the proved my client was not even in the state of California at the time the fraudulent service took place. The default was set aside and landlord agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice as a result of my tenacious negotiations.
"Unlawful Detainer case dismissed yet again Due to Bartley Babcock's Aggressive and Fearless Advocacy for Tenant"
My client, the tenant, lived in an apartment that had a fire. He was forced to move out while workers fixed the fire damage. The repairs took over 3 months to complete and my client exercised his right to terminate his 2-year lease. Landlord accepted this. 6 months after terminating his lease, my client was sued for 'unlawful detainer' by this landlord despite the fact that my client was not in possession of the apartment at the time nor had he been in possession for over 6 months! Attorney Bartley Babcock made one phone call to landlord's Attorney (D.B.) and the case was dismissed! Client extremely happy but very outraged at this particular plaintiff.
"Mortgage Broker Who Was Being Sued to the Tune of over $200,000"
This, unfortunately for my client, was another bogus Plaintiff money grab lawsuit - going after him because he had deep pockets. Again, my client was the alleged "ringleader". I can't think of a more bogus legal theory. Plaintiff's attorneys filed numerous frivolous motions seeking sanctions and threatening to call the police, FBI and others to investigate my client in all his real estate transactions going back deep into his past. What a joke. Plaintiff's lawyers were borderline senile due to old age and incompetence. One yelled on the phone because he knew his client was probably upset because he was paying hourly to the attorneys with NOTHING to show for it. Their case fell apart after my client was deposed and we learned that he had nothing to do with any of the bad acts by a rouge "loan mod" officer who was the real fraudster.
When I convinced Plaintiff that their case was bad, he agreed to dismiss my client thereby letting him out of the lawsuit, upon my client sending a check for $1,000. This was hilarious given that they had focused on my client's "guilty" for over a year and a half. You wonder why people sometimes despite lawyers. Well, look at your actions and how you conducted yourselves over the past 2 years, wasting my client's money, several thousands of dollars of your client's own money because you charged them hourly as you admitted at the depo. Not a great business model to follow in this case. I'm not aware of any law that provides for someone who can be sued under the theory of being a "ring leader". Hilarious. Please tell me if I am wrong on this. Think harder next time, go back to review your law school lecture notes, and don't perpetuate the stereotype that good lawyers, like me, fight so hard to surmount.
"Bartley Babcock persuades Judge to Dismiss entire case WITH PREJUDICE"
Defending an unlicensed general contractor in a lawsuit where the contractor was accused of building a house without the required license (which is illegal), Mr. Babcock was able to get all the fraud charges dismissed from the complaint as a result of a legal brief he submitted to the court. At oral argument before the judge, Mr. Babcock prevailed by persuading the judge that the fraud claims were completely frivolous and without any merit whatsoever. Demurrer sustained without leave to amend. Client was really happy because then he was able to file bankruptcy which stopped the civil case dead in it's tracks and he did not have to pay the Plaintiff any money in the lawsuit.
"Attorney Bartley Babcock wins $10,000 for client in small claims appeal"
My client was defrauded by a chop shop owner who never properly repaired his car after a car accident. The parts allegedly used to fix my clients car were either stolen or non-existent. Client got his car back from the chop shop in much the same condition in which it was after the car accident. The chop shop owner stole $3,000 of my client's car insurance proceeds without refunding client for services not performed. We had the car inspected by a licensed professional after my client got the car back and the inspector concluded that the agreed upon repairs were not performed. We were awarded bad faith damages and attorney's fees.
Client slipped and fell in an allegedly unguarded, open and obvious, construction hole in a city sidewalk in Orange County. Client injured his knee and shoulder. Case settled based on a thorough and fearless demand package I sent to the City Attorney. Client was very happy at the end of the day.
In People v. S.O., the defendant, who for the past 25 years had worked tirelessly as a plumber, was charged by prosecutors with felony grand theft of copper wire from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Before Mr. Babcock was retained, prosecutors offered the client 54 months in state prison (because of his prior violent felony conviction stemming from 1994), and his maximum exposure if he proceeded to trial and lost was ten years in state prison. Mr. Babcock persuaded the prosecutor to drop the felony grand theft charge and Babcock obtained a “time-served” sentence for the defendant with 20 days of community service. Mr. Babcock convinced the Pomona prosecutor to strike the prior strike.
In People v. R.R., client was pulled over for DUI as he was pulling into the driveway at his private residence. Client admits that he was “hammered” and the police video of the incident showed that client miserably failed all field sobriety tests with flying colors. The blood test taken at the hospital did not help our case as it registered an “excessively high blood alcohol” content at .21. Before Mr. Babcock was retained, client’s only option was to take a 9 month alcohol program due to the high BAC. However, Mr. Babcock came on the case and convinced the city attorney to dismiss the BAC enhancement (greater than .15) which allowed the client to take a 3 month alcohol class, thereby saving hundreds of dollars and months of wasted time.
In People v. M.R., the defendant, who was pulled over for speeding more than 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, in addition to not having proof of insurance for the vehicle, was afraid that he was going to be hit with a ridiculous amount of fines, fees and penalty assessments that traffic courts commonly dole out in Los Angeles County. By filing various motions and subpoenas for records, Mr. Babcock’s efforts resulted in a dismissal of the case thereby saving client about 1500 dollars in fines and fees.
"Attorney Bartley Babcock gets multiple charges dropped at preliminary hearing in 47-defendant auto theft conspiracy case in Rancho Cucamonga"
In People v. R.M., defendant was charged with multiple counts of grand theft auto, conspiracy to commit grand theft auto, and receiving stolen property. While cross-examining the police officer on the stand, Attorney Mr. Babcock was able to get officer to admit that prosecutors had no evidence whatsoever that defendant had knowledge that the cars he was driving were stolen nor that defendant had the intent to steal the cars from their rightful owners. Multiple charges were dropped as a result.
"In a vehicular manslaughter case where Client's bad driving resulted in death of the victim Bartley Babcock gets client community service"
In People v. B.S., defendant fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into another car killing the driver instantly. The normal penalty for this crime is four years in prison. The case was held at the Pomona Courthouse which is notorious for being about as tough on crime as the courts in Orange County. Pomona is an extremely hostile environment for defendant's as well as their lawyers. As a result of a deep investigation conducted by my own personal private investigator and non-stop, aggressive to-the-point-of-annoying negotiations with the prosecutor, Mr. Babcock was able to get the case reduced to a misdemeanor with no jail time. Probation, community service and a brief suspension of defendant's driver's license were the only penalties imposed. Great result. Unheard of in a Pomona case.
"Bartley Babcock prevails at the DMV's APS Drunk Driving Hearing. Client keeps driver's license."
Defense attorneys lose 90% of the time at a DMV Hearing in a drunk driving case. Mr. Babcock somehow miraculously won at the DMV hearing in a drunk driving case where client crashed into two parked cars causing over $20,000 in damage and made statements admitting to drinking wine "all day" and having just come from the store where she bought more booze. Client blew a .12 BAC (which is way over the legal limit of .08). In the end, Babcock prevented the DMV from suspending his license for any period of time.
"In a DUI case where client crashes into 2 parked cars and BAC was .12, Attorney Babcock gets offered a 'Wet Reckless'!"
Sometimes, in LA County, prosecutors offer a 'wet reckless' instead of DUI when the driver's blood alcohol concentration is very close to or under the legal limit of .08. However, if there was a traffic accident you will almost NEVER get offered a 'wet,' unless you have Mr. Babcock working your case. Client crashed into 2 parked cars causing $15,000 in damage, multiple witnesses, booze found in the car, client tells police she had been drinking all day, yet Mr. Babcock smooth talked all 3 prosecutors and the judge and presented the client as the 'victim' of a disease for which she had open heart surgery to correct, and was on several heart medications at the time of the accident. As a result, client did not have to install the 'ignition interlock device' in her car, did not have to do a 3 month alcohol class, and did not have to be on probation for 3 years, and only had to pay HALF the fines and fees commonly applied in a DUI case.
"Bartley Babcock gets client a "wet reckless" (instead of DUI) in a drunk driving case where client runs from the cops and blows a .16, .17 on the chemical breathalyzer test."
Don't ask me how this was pulled off. Really bad facts for the defense considering client was running away from the cops at the time of the arrest. The blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit too. Not a lot of mitigating facts for my client, however, he had no prior arrests whatsoever and there was evidence that the arresting officer had been "sidelined" by a previous employer for abusing his power and using excessive force on citizens.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in fine
 v. 
 v.