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

State Bar of Texas 509W. T.Waggoner Building Re: Terms of the Harris County FortWorth, 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.

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

"1. CanW. Sears McGee, a resident of that portion of Harris County, Texas, that is soon tobecome Congressional District No. 22, serve as Director of the State Bar for saidDistrict No. 22, on the theory that he is entitled to complete the three year term beginning July, 1957, forwhich hewas electedby the lawyers of Harris County, Texas, at a timewhen that entire County comprised Congressional District No. 8?

"2. Can the Grievance Committee for Congressional District No. 8, all ofwhom live in that portion of Harris County, Texas that is
soonto become Congressional District No. 22, serveas members of the Grievance Committee forDistrict No. 22 for the balance of the terms forwhich they were originally appointed,without any further action in theway of re-appointment?"

You further state that Mr. McGee was elected State Bar Director for the Eighth Congressional District inJune, 1955, for a three-year term commencing July 6, 1957. Thereafter, by theprovisions of House Bill 229, Acts of the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, Chapter 286, page 681, codified as Article 197a ofVernon's Civil Statutes, Harris Countywas divided into two Congressional Districts --.

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

Nos. 8 and 22 --and that Mr. McGee lives in thatpart of the county which isnow the 22nd Congressional District.

It isapparent that Section 2 ofArticle 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:

"Eachelected Director shallbe a resident of the district forwhich he is elected and upon removal from the district shall thereby automatically vacate his office.

. . . "Ifthere beany vacancy, the President shall appoint somemember who isa resident of the district inwhich the vacancy exists to serveuntil the next regular annual election ofDirectors."

Inaddition, 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. Inthat case, the Commissioners' Court changed the boundaries of the commissioners'precincts, which resulted inplacing Commissioner Sachse's residence inaprecinct different from that fromwhich hewas elected. The Commissioners' Courtpromptly declared avacancy and appointed another individual to serve the remainder of Sachse's term. Sachse sued the county seeking torecover 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.
"'Whilea change ofboundary lines of

commissiol.erdistricts, or a redistricting, does not deprive a county commissioner of the right tohold office for the rest ofhis term,, although by reason of the change his residende is withmlt the district fromwhich hewas elected, provided it isstill within the county, stillhe does not by becoming a resident of another district, become entitled to succeed the official 7- in that-district after the expiration ofhis 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 inprecinct boundaries do not create avacancy in the office of County Commissioner or deprive the incumbent of the right tohold office, for the remainder of his term, even though by reason of such changes his residence is notwithin theprecinct as redefined."

Even though the Supreme Court failed tomake reference to the latterpart of the quotation by the Court of Civil Appeals concerning the right of the Commissioner to succeed to the official of the district ofhis residence after the cha~n;;e ofboundary, the language in the opinion of the Court of Civj~i Appeais would, ,inour opinion, preclude Mr. McGee from completing the remainder ofhis elected term as Pirector of a Congressional District different from that fromwhich hewas elected. Considering the foregoing, it is our opinion that your f~Lrstquestion must be answered in the negative. It might be added, however, that the langu~ageof the Sachse c,^se; along with the authorities cited therein, establishes the right ofMr. McGee to continue to serve as State Bar Director
.rom the 8th Congressional District, fromwhich hewas elected, .P ~;.ntii the expiration of his term. Regardin:;your second question as towhether th~os~ appointed tG the original Grievance Committee, Dist,rictNo. 2, may continue to serve asmembersof Grievance Conmiittre:District No. 22-,>:ithoutthenecessity of re-appointment, Section 4 of Article XII of the Rules of the State Bar of Texas, provides inpart as follows:

"Inmaking appointments for the first time after this amended ruie hasbeen adopted and become effective, or after Congressional redistricting, orafter change inboundaries of districts, the President shall specify which members of the Committee whose terms have net expired shall serve for one more year, which for twomore years, and which, ifany, shall serve for three more years, and likewise with reference ~toappointments 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- ,mitteeshall expire each year."

It isapparent 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 mayprescribe, without the necessity ofre-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 ,inthe 22nd Congressional Dlstrict; but hemay continue to serve as Director of the 8th Congressional District for the remainder ofhis term. However, themembers 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 WILSONneral 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