Colby G. Berry - Denton, TX

I hired Colby to handle what should have been a straightforward child support modification case on 03/02/2026. From the outset, communication with his office was a persistent problem that ultimately affected the outcome of my case. His paralegal was not aware of the current child support net resources cap that Texas had recently raised, despite that figure being central to the case she was working on. This raised concerns about how closely my file was actually being managed. Beyond that, she called me repeatedly regarding routine matters, even after I gave clear written instructions in email that I preferred communication in writing due to my work schedule. I work shift work with long, irregular hours, which I explained to the firm directly — yet this pattern of calling continued throughout the representation. In addition to these calls, the firm scheduled multiple intrafirm conferences over the course of the case, each of which generated additional billable time on top of the communications already taking place. Colby repeatedly told me that opposing counsel was unwilling to negotiate or engage in any meaningful settlement discussions throughout the process. Despite that claim, I was billed over $7,000 in just under 3 months, including time billed for researching mediation venues and identifying a potential mediator. Mediation never actually occurred. Instead, the case went straight to a preliminary hearing, meaning that time and expense produced no actual progress toward resolution. This raises an obvious question: if opposing counsel truly was unwilling to negotiate at all, as I was repeatedly told, why was time and money spent pursuing mediation — a process that only makes sense if both sides are willing to negotiate in the first place? The firm's communication practices created a substantial amount of unnecessary billing beyond the mediation research. This wasn't limited to discovery documents — even routine communications, such as requests for dates or questions relayed from opposing counsel, followed the same pattern. The paralegal would send a request and not wait for a reasonable amount of time for my response before following up with a phone call, and then again with a follow-up email — generating multiple separate billable communications for what should have been a single exchange. On several occasions, I received 3 billable communications within a period of less than 16hrs, despite the firm being fully aware of my work schedule and despite my having asked them, more than once, to reduce this pattern of over-communication. After I repeatedly and clearly asked the firm to stop this pattern, Colby filed a motion to withdraw from my case in early 06/2026, citing 'lack of communication' as the reason. This motion was filed a little over a month before my scheduled hearing date, leaving me with limited time to secure new representation or adequately prepare on my own. After withdrawing, Colby refused to send me the settlement negotiation history or any documents reflecting communications with opposing counsel. He stated he had 30 days to transfer my file — a timeframe that would place the transfer after my hearing date had already passed. 2 days before my hearing, I had a 45-min consultation with Brian Bagley. In that single conversation, I received more useful, pertinent information to help my case than I had from Colby during the entire representation. Mr. Bagley sent over relevant case law I could use to argue my position at the hearing and identified specific holes in opposing counsel's argument. This stood in stark contrast to what Colby had told me throughout the case — that there were no grounds to argue for anything other than the maximum amount. At the hearing, opposing counsel and I were able to negotiate and reach an agreement within the first 5 min of speaking with each other directly. During that conversation, she stated that she had never actually been presented with the settlement offer.