Mr. Leo Brewster. President Ooinion No. WW-522 

State Bar of Texas 

509 W. T. Waggoner Building Re: Terms of the Harris County 

Fort Worth, Texas Director of the State Bar 

of Texas and members of 

the Grievance Committee, 

following division of that 

county into an additional 

Dear Mr. Brewster: Congressional District. 

In your recent letter you have propounded two cluestions for the consideration of this office. 

"1. Can W. Sears McGee, a resident of 

that portion of Harris County, Texas, that 

is soon to become Congressional District No. 

22, serve as Director of the State Bar for 

said District No. 22, on the theory that he 

is entitled to complete the three year term 

beginning July, 1957, for which he was elected by the lawyers of Harris County, Texas, at 

a time when that entire County comprised 

Congressional District No. 8? 

"2. Can the Grievance Committee for Congressional District No. 8, all of whom live in 

that portion of Harris County, Texas that is 

soon to become Congressional District No. 22, 

serve as members of the Grievance Committee 

for District No. 22 for the balance of the 

terms for which they were originally appointed, without any further action in the way of 

re-appointment?" 

You further state that Mr. McGee was elected State 

Bar Director for the Eighth Congressional District in June, 

1955, for a three-year term commencing July 6, 1957. Thereafter, by the provisions of House Bill 229, Acts of the 55th 

Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, Chapter 286, page 681, 

codified as Article 197a of Vernon's Civil Statutes, Harris 

County was divided into two Congressional Districts -- 
. 

Mr. Leo Brewster, page 2. (WW-522) 

Nos. 8 and 22 -- and that Mr. McGee lives in that part of the 

county which is now the 22nd Congressional District. 

It is apparent that Section 2 of Article VI, Rules 

Governing the State Bar of Texas, quoted as follows, contemplates that each Congressional District be represented 

on the Board of Directors of the State Bar by a resident of 

that District: 

"Each elected Director shall be a resident of the district for which he is elected 

and upon removal from the district shall thereby automatically vacate his office. . . . 

"If there be any vacancy, the President 

shall appoint some member who is a resident of 

the district in which the vacancy exists to 

serve until the next regular annual election 

of Directors." 

In addition, the recent case of Childress County v. 

Sachse, 310 S.W.2d 414, and affirmed by 312 S.W. 26-330, is 

analagous to the situation presented here. In that case, the 

Commissioners' Court changed the boundaries of the commissioners' precincts, which resulted in placing Commissioner Sachse's 

residence in a precinct different from that from which he was 

elected. The Commissioners' Court promptly declared a vacancy 

and appointed another individual to serve the remainder of 

Sachse's term. Sachse sued the county seeking to recover the 

salary of the office for that part of the term after his "removal". The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Distri~ct 

Court's for Sachse by relying upon and quoting 20 

C.J.S. 

"'While a change of boundary lines of 

commissiol.er districts, or a redistricting, 

does not deprive a county commissioner of the 

right to hold office for the rest of his term,, 

although by reason of the change his residende 

is withmlt the district from which he was elected, 

provided it isstill within the county, still he 

does not by becoming a resident of another district, become entitled to succeed the official 7- in that-district after the expiration of his 

term.'" (Emphasis ours) ._- 
. 

Mr. Leo Brewster, page 3. (ww-522) 

The Supreme Court affirmed, using the following 

language: 

,I 

. . . We approve the holding of the 

Court of Civil Appeals that changes in precinct boundaries do not create a vacancy in 

the office of County Commissioner or deprive 

the incumbent of the right to hold office, 

for the remainder of his term, even though 

by reason of such changes his residence is 

not within the precinct as redefined." 

Even though the Supreme Court failed to make reference 

to the latter part of the quotation by the Court of Civil Appeals concerning the right of the Commissioner to succeed to 

the official of the district of his residence after the cha~n;;e 

of boundary, the language in the opinion of the Court of Civj~i 

Appeais would, ,in our opinion, preclude Mr. McGee from completing the remainder of his elected term as Pirector of a 

Congressional District different from that from which he was 

elected. 

Considering the foregoing, it is our opinion that 

your f~Lrst question must be answered in the negative. It 

might be added, however, that the langu~age of the Sachse c,^se; 

along with the authorities cited therein, establishes the 

right of Mr. McGee to continue to serve as State Bar Director 

.rom .P the 8th Congressional District, from which he was elected, 

~;.ntii the expiration of his term. 

Regardin:; your second question as to whether th~os~ 

appointed tG the original Grievance Committee, Dist,rict No. 2, 

may continue to serve as members of Grievance Conmiittre: District No. 22-, >:ithout the necessity of re-appointment, Section 4 of Article XII of the Rules of the State Bar of Texas, 

provides in part as follows: 

"In making appointments for the first 

time after this amended ruie has been adopted 

and become effective, or after Congressional redistricting, or after change in boundaries of 

districts, the President shall specify which 

members of the Committee whose terms have net 

expired shall serve for one more year, which 

for two more years, and which, if any, shall 

serve for three more years, and likewise with 

reference ~to appointments then being made, 
. 

Mr. Leo Brewster, page 4. (WW-522) 

which members shall serve for one, two or 

three years, to the end that thereafter the 

terms of approximately one-third of the Com- 

,mittee shall expire each year." 

It is apparent that those members of the Grievance 

Committee whose terms have not expired, may continue to serve 

in the district of their residence after the Congressional redistricting, for such a term as the President of the State Bar 

may prescribe, without the necessity of re-appointment. 

SUMMARY 

After a Congressional redistricting which 

divides the 8th Congressional District into 

Congressional Districts Nos. 8 and 22, a 

Director of the State Bar of Texas, elected 

from the original 8th Congressional District, 

does not have a right to continue his term 

as a Director of the 22nd Congressional District, where his residence after the redistricting is ,in the 22nd Congressional Dlstrict; but he may continue to serve as Director of the 8th Congressional District for the 

remainder of his term. However, the members 

of the Grievance Committee, District No. 8, 

whose terms have not expired, may continue 

to serve in such capacity in the District of 

their residence, after a Congressional redistricting, for such term as the President 

may designate, without the necessity of reappointment. 

JLE:ci:zt 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

neral of Texas 

hn L. Estes 

Assistant 

Chairman 

L. P. Lollar 

Ray v. Loftin, Jr. 

Robert Lewis 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert