Law Offices of Clarence Patterson III

Reviews

• TR

  Tas Russ

  Sep 3, 2026
  1.0
  I am the wife of the opposing party in a Minnesota family-court matter in which Clarence Patterson III represented the other side. He never represented me. I personally lived with the fallout of this litigation and later reviewed the official transcript, sworn filings, agency correspondence, and final order. What disturbed me was not that Mr. Patterson advocated for his client. Lawyers are expected to advocate. It was the method: disputed mental-health claims, medication allegations, and firearms imagery were repeatedly combined to portray my husband as dangerous before those claims were fully tested. At the August 28, 2025 hearing, the transcript records Mr. Patterson referring to “his bipolar disorder,” saying my husband was “out of control” and “spiraling out of control,” stating that his client believed he had “stopped taking his medication,” saying he “loves to talk about guns,” warning that adults or children could be “caught in the crossfire,” and later saying he “needs a gun to solve his problems.” My husband stated on the record that he hated guns, had never owned one, and would never keep one in his home. Mr. Patterson was responding to communications he and his client interpreted as threatening, and that context matters. Even with that context, I found the repeated fusion of psychiatric labels, medication claims, firearms, and violence frightening, stigmatizing, and disproportionate. An allegation, a client’s belief, a diagnosis, and a proven fact are not interchangeable. I was equally disturbed by the Dakota County Crisis issue. A sworn filing stated that a crisis-team member contacted counsel and that the entire office had been alerted to take precautions concerning my husband. A Dakota County Crisis supervisor later wrote that she searched the system and consulted other supervisors, found no record or recollection of such an alert, found no duty-to-warn documentation, and stated that the team does not communicate directly with attorneys. That response does not by itself prove what Mr. Patterson knew when the filing was made. It does establish a serious conflict between a sworn court filing and the government agency whose warning was invoked. A discrepancy that consequential deserved a transparent explanation, verification, and correction wherever necessary. The judge warned that the real victims of high-conflict family litigation are children, that this conflict can harm their physical and emotional health and future wellbeing, and that the stakes could not be higher. Words spoken by lawyers do not remain inside a courtroom. They enter homes, careers, medical histories, future proceedings, and children’s understanding of their family. I watched this process consume enormous time, money, energy, and family stability. In my view, the advocacy reflected in the record intensified fear and conflict rather than narrowing disputed facts and moving the family toward a proportionate resolution. The matter ultimately resolved by stipulation before the scheduled evidentiary hearing. Many of the most damaging characterizations were therefore not tested at that hearing. Settlement did not erase the reputational, professional, financial, and family harm caused along the way. Based on what I witnessed and reviewed, I would not recommend Clarence Patterson III. Strong family-law advocacy should be accurate, restrained, humane, and conscious of its impact on children. I believe this record warrants a full, independent review by the appropriate professional authorities, including whether the conduct complied with duties of candor, truthfulness, reasonable expedition, fairness, and respect for third persons. I am not claiming that a court or disciplinary authority has already found professional misconduct. I am saying the record raises serious questions that deserve more investigation, not less.
• TS

  Tory Schaaf

  Sep 3, 2026
  1.0
  I was the opposing party in a Minnesota family-court matter in which Clarence Patterson III represented the other side. He never represented me. My concern is not that he advocated for his client; it is how serious allegations involving mental health, medication, firearms, and violence were presented. At an August 28, 2025 hearing, the official transcript records Mr. Patterson referring to "his bipolar disorder," saying I "love to talk about guns," warning that people could be "caught in the crossfire," and later portraying me as someone who "needs a gun to solve his problems." I stated on the record that I hate guns, have never owned one, and would never keep one in my home. I recognize that he was responding to communications he and his client interpreted as threatening. Even so, I experienced the repeated combination of psychiatric labels and firearms imagery as disproportionate, stigmatizing, and dehumanizing. Allegations, interpretations, diagnoses, and proven facts are not interchangeable. I was also deeply troubled by a Dakota County Crisis discrepancy. A sworn filing stated that a crisis-team member contacted counsel and that the entire office had been alerted to take precautions concerning me. A Crisis supervisor later wrote that, after searching the system and consulting other supervisors, there was no record or recollection of such an alert, no duty-to-warn documentation, and that the team does not communicate directly with attorneys. This does not prove what Mr. Patterson knew at the time, but it deserved a clear explanation and correction wherever necessary. In family law, the best-interests standard should be central. I did not experience Mr. Patterson's approach as reducing conflict or promoting a fair, efficient resolution. I will not disclose confidential mediation communications, but I experienced the process as prolonged, increasingly adversarial, and deeply damaging. The case resolved by stipulation before the scheduled evidentiary hearing, so many damaging characterizations were never tested at that hearing. The effects on my life, reputation, career, finances, and family relationships were profound. Irreplaceable time was lost. Based on my direct experience, I would not recommend Clarence Patterson III. Strong advocacy should remain accurate, proportionate, restrained, and humane. I believe the record warrants independent review under professional duties concerning candor, truthfulness, reasonable expedition, and respect for others. This review reflects my personal experience and interpretation of the record. I am not claiming that a court or disciplinary authority has entered a finding of professional misconduct.
• HH

  HonestReviewer

  Aug 15, 2026
  1.0
  ONE STAR. If you are considering Clarence Patterson for a high-conflict family-law matter, I would proceed with extreme caution. I experienced his litigation style firsthand. What concerned me was not strong advocacy—it was how quickly conflict escalated through personal attacks, disputed mental-health labels, gun-related fear language, restraining-order threats, broad discovery, fee pressure, and repeated involvement of outside agencies. The court transcript is what changed my view most. In one hearing, Patterson referred to a disputed bipolar diagnosis as “his bipolar disorder,” repeated that a child “calls him a psycho,” and used gun and “crossfire” language while arguing dangerousness. In my opinion, that kind of framing risks turning family court into a fear contest instead of a careful fact-finding process. I was equally troubled by an agency-record discrepancy. A serious crisis-service warning had been attributed to a county agency. Later written clarification from that agency reported no record or recollection of the alleged alert, no documented duty-to-warn event, and that its crisis team does not communicate directly with private attorneys that way. When allegations this serious can affect custody and parenting time, the original records should matter. I also watched the dispute expand through HRO threats, discovery, fees, supervised parenting, evaluators, police contacts, and other systems. Families pay for that escalation. Taxpayers pay for it. Most importantly, children live with the consequences. That is what I believe is wrong with this style of family-law practice. Lawyers have enormous power to either lower conflict or intensify it. Family court should be about resolving disputes and protecting children—not multiplying accusations until everyone is trapped in litigation. My takeaway is simple: repetition is not proof. A diagnosis should come from qualified professionals. An agency claim should match the agency’s actual records. A threat should be supported by evidence. A child’s emotional words should not become a substitute for professional evaluation. Based on what I personally experienced, I believe this approach intensified conflict and made resolution harder, not easier. If you are involved with this office, preserve every communication. Get the transcripts. Obtain the original police and agency records. Compare what is represented in court with what the source material actually says. I would not recommend Clarence Patterson. One star. Proceed with extreme caution.
• DG

  Delya Guajardo

  Mar 23, 2026
  5.0
  I had the pleasure of having Clarence take over 2 of my cases and I must say I was happy with absolutely everything he did. Fast, reliable and affordable, will definitely recommend!
• SQ

  Stefanie Gonzalez Quintero

  Aug 10, 2023
  5.0
  Professional and compassionate attorney

Frequently Asked Questions About Law Offices of Clarence Patterson III