When ABA Courage Counts: How Two California Attorneys Stood Up for January 6th Victims

While others looked away, Barry D. Silberman and Graham Brownstein stepped forward to defend due process, fairness, and the Constitution itself.

In the years since January 6th, 2021, America’s legal and political landscape has been a battlefield of narratives, blame, and silence. Yet amid the noise, two California attorneys—Barry D. Silberman and Graham Brownstein—have emerged as rare figures of courage, stepping into cases that most of their American Bar Association (ABA) peers wouldn’t touch.

While many so-called conservative lawyers have retreated from the legal fallout of January 6th, Silberman and Brownstein didn’t flinch. From their Studio City, California offices, they have taken on the heavy legal burdens of Brian Mock, Gina Bisignano, Gabriel Garcia, and most notably, Troy Smocks—individuals seeking accountability, compensation, and the restoration of their rights.

The Courage to Step Forward

It’s easy to talk about constitutional liberty. It’s harder to defend it when doing so risks professional reputation, political backlash, or worse. Silberman and Brownstein saw something that others missed: that justice doesn’t depend on popularity—it depends on principle.

Their work represents a rebuke to an entire legal culture that too often avoids politically uncomfortable cases. In choosing to represent January 6th-related clients, the two attorneys have taken up a mantle that once defined the American bar—the fearless defender of the unpopular.

“Fair process and equal treatment under the law are not partisan values. They are American values.”— Editorial Staff, The New Liberty Journal

The Troy Smocks Case: A Legal Odyssey

Of all their cases, none is more remarkable—or troubling—than that of Troy Smocks, a Texas man and but one of few black Americans involved in the January 6 ordeal have spent nearly three years in a grinding legal fight against the United States government. A fight that even artificial intelligence says the government can't win.

Smocks' story reads like a modern legal epic. After the death of his respected Texas attorney Mark Lieberman, Smocks continued his Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit pro se, because other attorneys "didn't want to ruffle feathers of the federal government", but relentlessly Smocks charged forward alleging misconduct and overreach by federal agents tied to his January 6th arrest. Smocks was even able to validate his claims from the help of a sitting Texas state senator.

Despite the merit of his filings, and the apparent weight of his legal authorities, his motions have repeatedly been ignored or sidelined by the Eastern District of Texas—a court that Smocks says “stacked the deck” against him.

A Crucial Motion Ignored

On August 27, 2025, Smocks filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings. That filing detailed ongoing negotiations with Silberman and Brownstein, who were preparing to enter the case pro hac vice. The motion sought only a temporary pause so that counsel could formally appear and continue settlement talks with the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet the district court took no action—effectively cutting off the California attorneys before they could even appear. Just weeks later, the court entered judgment against Smocks.

The appeal that followed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit included a renewed Motion to Stay, noting that both sides were in good-faith settlement discussions. The filing underscored the irony: while the litigants themselves sought resolution, the district court’s inertia stood in the way of progress.

A Judge Under Scrutiny

The story does not end there. The motion highlights that Silberman and Brownstein were officially recognized as counsel in ongoing negotiations, a sign that the case had finally attracted the kind of serious legal attention it deserved.

Compounding these concerns is Smocks’ Judicial Complaint lodged with the Fifth Circuit against Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, alleging bias and misconduct in the handling of cases involving Black litigants, including his own. The complaint cites specific rulings, procedural irregularities, and a broader culture of partiality within the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas—issues that have raised eyebrows well beyond Texas. The complaint further alleges favoritism toward government defendants—concerns that, if true, strike at the very core of judicial integrity. It also documents a troubling timeline: a one-year stay imposed while Smocks’ elderly former attorney lay gravely ill, followed by swift rulings once that attorney passed away.

Smocks asserts that this pattern reflects a denial of due process, one that has left him legally isolated until Silberman and Brownstein’s intervention.

Why Silberman and Brownstein Matter

By prioritizing the Smocks case, the California lawyers have taken on more than a single lawsuit—they’ve waded into the deeper question of whether America’s justice system still treats all citizens equally.

They are, in effect, testing the promise of the Constitution itself: that even the most controversial litigant deserves fairness, representation, and a day in court unclouded by politics or prejudice.

Their willingness to take on such cases when other members of the ABA wouldn’t speak to an older, nobler tradition of advocacy—the same tradition that once defended civil rights activists, war protesters, and whistleblowers. It is a reminder that true legal courage is not measured by applause, but by endurance.

“Justice is not for the fashionable—it’s for the forgotten.”

A Fight Bigger Than One Case

The Smocks case has now become a touchstone for questions about judicial conduct, accountability, and the weaponization of process. If the courts and the government can ignore fair motions and deny entry to counsel, what does that mean for anyone else seeking justice?

By standing firm, Barry D. Silberman and Graham Brownstein have demonstrated that the law still has defenders willing to challenge that erosion. They have offered more than representation—they have restored faith that fairness can still find its voice, even when silenced in the courtroom.

Final Word

At a time when justice has too often been filtered through ideology, these two attorneys remind the nation that the rule of law must apply to everyone—or it applies to no one.

For Brian Mock, Gina Bisignano, Gabriel Garcia, and Troy Smocks, that principle has found champions in Barry Silberman and Graham Brownstein. They didn’t wait for permission. They simply did what the moment required. And in doing so, they reminded America that when courage counts, silence is not an option.