Ex parte W. Perry Hall.

Annotate this Case

Attorney W. Perry Hall petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its order entered on August 15, 2019 requiring Hall, among other things, to issue a letter of apology to his clients. Hall represented a homeowners association and multiple individual homeowners in a Mobile subdivision in a lawsuit against the developer of that subdivision. After Hall moved to dismiss certain counterclaims asserted against those homeowners, the circuit court entered an order demanding that Hall "provide a copy of this order and a copy of Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 19, as well as a copy of [the motion to dismiss] to [his homeowner clients], along with a letter explaining how Rule 19 works, apologizing for the invectives and sheer puffery used in this frankly scandalous pleading." The circuit court entered the order because it "dislike[d]" Hall's use of the phrase "forced Plaintiff's [sic]" to describe the plaintiffs, as well as other terms used in the motion to dismiss. The circuit court provided no other basis for the directives in its order. Hall filed this petition for a writ of mandamus contending he circuit court had exceeded its discretion by entering the order. The Alabama Supreme Court did not address that issue because, six days later, the circuit court vacated the order after the individual homeowners were dismissed from the action by joint stipulation.

Download PDF

REL: November 6, 2020 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021 ____________________ 1180976 ____________________ Ex parte W. Perry Hall PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Briargrove Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. v. DMIH, LLC, et al.) (Mobile Circuit Court, CV-17-273) MITCHELL, Justice. 1180976 Attorney W. Perry Hall petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court ("the circuit court"), Judge James Patterson presiding, to vacate its order entered on August 15, 2019 ("the order"), requiring Hall, among other things, to issue a letter of apology to his clients. We dismiss the petition as moot. Hall represents a homeowners association and multiple individual homeowners in a Mobile subdivision in a lawsuit against the developer of that subdivision. After Hall moved to dismiss certain counterclaims asserted against those homeowners, the circuit court entered an order demanding that Hall "provide a copy of this order and a copy of Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 19, as well as a copy of [the motion to dismiss] to [his homeowner clients], along with a letter explaining how Rule 19 works, apologizing for the invectives and sheer puffery used in this frankly scandalous pleading." (Emphasis in original.) The circuit court entered the order because it "dislike[d]" Hall's use of the phrase "forced Plaintiff's [sic]" to describe the plaintiffs, as well as other terms used in the motion to dismiss. The circuit court provided no other basis for the directives in its order. 2 1180976 On August 30, 2019, Hall filed this petition for a writ of mandamus because, he says, the circuit court had exceeded its discretion by entering the order. We need not address that issue, however, because, six days later, the circuit court vacated the order after the individual homeowners were dismissed from the action by joint stipulation. It is unclear whether all the parties named in the order were dismissed before the circuit court vacated the order, but, because the order was vacated, Hall's petition is now moot. Although we do not review whether the circuit court exceeded its discretion by entering the order, we emphasize that a judge is expected to maintain "the decorum and temperance befitting his office" and should be "patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity." Canon 2.B., Canon 3.A.(3), Canons of Judicial Ethics. This is because deference to the judgments and rules of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. Canon 2.A., Canons of Judicial Ethics. "The Canons are not merely guidelines for proper judicial conduct" but have "the force and effect of law." In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 355 3 1180976 (Ala. 1984). We expect the circuit court to faithfully comply with the Canons at all times in its interaction with the litigants and attorneys who appear before it. PETITION DISMISSED. Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur. Shaw and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.