# IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

## N O



## . 12-0208

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



# I N R E 

# R E B E C C A 

# R A M IR E Z 

# P A L O M O


# , R E L A T O R

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## O N 

## P E T I T I O N F O R 

## W R I T O F 

## M A N D A M U S



### 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## P ER CURIAM

Rebec ca Ramirez Palomo and Fe rnando Sanchez eac h applied to t h e chair of the Webb

County Democr atic Party to be place d on the g ener al primary elec tion ba llot as a candida te for the

office of judge of the 341st J udicial District Court. Sanchez reque sted the chair to decla re Ramirez 1



## ineligible, asser

ting that she had not been “a prac ticing lawy er

. . . for four (4) y ear s next prec eding ” 2



## this y ear ’s g ener al elec tion, as require d b y Ar t icle V, Section 7 of the Texas Constit ution. 3



## S pecif ically

, Sanchez contende d that Ramirez could not prac tice law from Novembe r 2 0 0 8 t o

T E X

. E L E C

. C O D E § 1 7 2

. 0 2 1 ( a ) ( “ T o b e e n t i t l e d t o a p l a c e o n t h e g e n e r a l p r i m a r y e l e c t i o n b a l l o t

, a c a n d i d a t e 1

m u s t m a k e a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p l a c e o n t h e b a l l o t

. ” ) ; i d

. § 1 7 2

. 0 2 2 ( a ) ( “ ( a ) A n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p l a c e o n t h e g e n e r a l

p r i m a r y e l e c t i o n b a l l o t m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h :

. . . ( 2 ) t h e c o u n t y c h a i r o r t h e s e c r e t a r y , i f a n y , o f t h e c o u n t y e x e c u t i v e

c o m m i t t e e , f

o r a n o f f i c e f i l l e d b y v o t e r s o f a s i n g l e c o u n t y

. ” ) ; T E X

. G O V T C O D E § 2 4

. 4 8 7 ( a ) ( “ T h e 3 4 1 s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t
i s c o m p o s e d o f W e b b C o u n t y

. ” )

.

T E X

. E L E C

. C O D E § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( b ) ( “ A c a n d i d a t e i n t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n f o r s t a t e a n d c o u n t y o f

f i c e r s m a y b e 2

d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b l e b e f

o r e t h e 3 0 t h d a y p r e c e d i n g e l e c t i o n d a y b y : ( 1 ) t h e p a r t y o f f i c e r r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r c e r t i f y i n g t h e

c a n d i d a t e s n a m e f

o r p l a c e m e n t o n t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n b a l l o t

. . . . ” )

.

T E X

. C O N S T

. a r t

. V

, § 7 ( “ E a c h d i s t r i c t j u d g e s h a l l b e e l e c t e d b y t h e q u a l i f i e d v o t e r s a t a G e n e r a l E l e c t i o n a n d 3

s h a l l b e a c i t i z e n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d o f t h i s S t a t e , w h o i s l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h i s S t a t e a n d h a s b e e n a

p r a c t i c i n g l a w y e r o r a J u d g e o f a C o u r t i n t h i s S t a t e , o r b o t h c o m b i n e d

, f o r f o u r ( 4 ) y e a r s n e x t p r e c e d i n g h i s e l e c t i o n

. . . . ” )

.

## November 2009, during which she claimed a non-pra cticing -at to r n e y e xe mp ti o n from the State Ba r’s

Mandatory Continui ng L eg al Educa tion (MCL E) require ments. When the chair ref used Sanchez’s

reque st, he petitioned the cour t of appe als for ma

ndamus relief

, which it g rante d, concluding that 4



## Ramirez is ineligible to serve in the office she seeks and direc ting that her na me be r emoved f

rom

the ballot. We then g rante d Ramirez’s petition for mandamus relief and direc ted the county chair

5



## to place Ramirez’s n am e on the ballot. We issued our order without opinion so as not to delay 6



## printing of the ballots. We now explain the basis for the order

. We conclude that the county chair 7



## did not violate any duty imposed by law and th at t h e co u rt of appea ls there fore exceede d its writ

power

. 8

T E X

. E L E C

. C O D E § 2 7 3

. 0 6 1 ( “ T h e s u p r e m e c o u r t o r a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s m a y i s s u e a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s t o

4

c o m p e l t h e p e r f

o r m a n c e o f a n y d u t y i m p o s e d b y l a w i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e h o l d i n g o f a n e l e c t i o n o r a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y

c o n v e n t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t y i s a p u b l i c o f f i c e r

. ” )

.

_ _ _ S

. W

. 3 d

_ _ _ ( T e x

. A p p

. – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 1 2

, o r i g

. p r o c e e d i n g )

. 5

5 5 T e x

. S u p

. C t

. J

. 4 6 0 ( M a r c h 2 8

, 2 0 1 2 )

. 6

T h e p r i m a r y e l e c t i o n c y c l e h a s a l r e a d y b e e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e l a y e d t h i s y e a r b y r e d i s t r i c t i n g l i t i g a t i o n i n f e d e r a l 7

c o u r t

. T h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s d i r e c t e d t h e c o u n t y c h a i r t o r e m o v e R a m i r e z ’ s n a m e f r o m t h e b a l l o t o n M a r c h 9

, b e f o r e t h e
M a r c h 1 2 d e a d l i n e f

o r c e r t i f y i n g c a n d i d a t e s s e t b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. S e e P e r e z v

. T e x a s , N o

. 1 1

- C V

- 3 6 0

- O L G

- J E S

- X R [ L e a d C a s e ] ( W

. D

. T e x

. ) ( O r d e r d a t e d M a r c h 1

, 2 0 1 2

, a n d A m e n d e d O r d e r R e g a r d i n g E l e c t i o n S c h e d u l e d a t e d M a r c h 1 9

, 2 0 1 2 )

. S a n c h e z a r g u e s t h a t t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t a c t a f t e r t h a t d e a d l i n e

. B u t w e h a v e o f t e n o r d e r e d

c a n d i d a t e s p l a c e d o n t h e b a l l o t a f t e r s t a t u t o r y d e a d l i n e s t o p r o t e c t t h e e l e c t o r a l p r o c e s s

. E

. g

. , B i r d v

. R o t h s t e i n , 9 3 0

S

. W

. 2 d 5 8 6

, 5 8 7 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 6 ) ; D a v i s v

. T a y l o r , 9 3 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 8 1

, 5 8 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 6 ) ; L a R o u c h e v

. H a n n a h

, 8 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d

6 3 2

, 6 3 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 2 ) ; P a i n t e r v

. S h a n e r , 6 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 2 3

, 1 2 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 8 4 )

. N o t h i n g i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s e t t i n g d a t e s f o r c o n d u c t i n g t h i s y e a r ’ s d e l a y e d p r i m a r y e l e c t i o n s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e d e a d l i n e s s h o u l d b e t r e a t e d a n y d i f f e r e n t l y

t h a n t h e s t a t u t o r y d e a d l i n e s t h e y r e p l a c e

.

S e e S t r a k e v

. C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s f o r F i r s t S u

p r e m e J u d i c i a l D i s t

. o

f T e x

. , 7 0 4 S

. W

. 2 d 7 4 6

, 7 4 7 ( T e x

. 1 9 8 6 ) ( “ I n 8

a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a p u b l i c o f f i c e r o v e r w h i c h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h a s m a n d a m u s p o w e r , t h a t c o u r t m a k e s a n i n d e p e n d e n t
i n q u i r y w h e t h e r t h e a c t

, o r r e f u s a l t o a c t

, o f t h e p u b l i c o f f i c e r i s c o n t r a r y t o a c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l d u t y

. I f s o , t h e

r e v i e w i n g c o u r t w i l l i s s u e t h e w r i t

. I n r e v i e w i n g b y w r i t o f m a n d a m u s t h e a c t i o n o f a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s o u r f o c u s r e m a i n s

o n t h e p o i n t o f

o r i g i n o f

t h e c a s e

. . . . W e f

i r s t d e t e r m i n e i f

t h e a c t i o n a t t h e p o i n t o f o r i g i n w a s p r o p e r

. I f

w e f i n d i t t o b e p r o p e r a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h a s h e l d o t h e r w i s e , i t h a s t h u s a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n a n d w e w i l l g r a n t t h e w r i t o f

m a n d a m u s d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t o s e t a s i d e i t s w r i t o f m a n d a m u s

. ” )

, c i t i n g J o h n s o n v

. F o u r t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , 7 0 0 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 6 ( T e x

. 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a l s o F i t c h v

. F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , 8 3 4 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 5

, 3 3 8 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 2 )

.



### 2

## A party office r responsible for cer tify ing a candida

te’s name for place ment on the g ener al

elec tion bal lo t mu s t decla

re the candida te ineligible if “fa cts indicating that the candida te is ineligible

are conclusively established by [a] public rec ord.” The issue in this case is whether public rec ords 9



## conclusively establish that Ramirez has not been continuously in prac tice since November 6, 2008.

Ramirez has been licensed to prac tice law in Tex as si nce 1999. To prac tice law in Texas,

a lawy er must be a member of the State Ba r of Texas. Every member of the S tate Ba r must 1 0



## complete fiftee n hours of MCL E eac h y ear

. A “complianc e y ear ” b egi n s on the first day of the 1 1



## member’ s birth month, but ever y member g ets a one -month automatic g rac e per iod after the end 1 2

T E X

. E L E C

. C O D E § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( f ) ( 2 )

. S e c t i o n 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( b ) s t a t e s t h a t “ [ a ] c a n d i d a t e i n t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n f o r 9

s t a t e a n d c o u n t y o f

f i c e r s m a y b e d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b l e b e f o r e t h e 3 0 t h d a y p r e c e d i n g e l e c t i o n d a y b y : ( 1 ) t h e p a r t y o f f i c e r

r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r c e r t i f y i n g t h e c a n d i d a t e ’ s n a m e f o r p l a c e m e n t o n t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n b a l l o t

. . . . ” I d

. § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( b ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. S e c t i o n 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( f ) s t a t e s t h a t “ [ a ] c a n d i d a t e m a y b e d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b l e o n l y i f : ( 1 ) t h e i n f

o r m a t i o n

o n t h e c a n d i d a t e ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p l a c e o n t h e b a l l o t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c a n d i d a t e i s i n e l i g i b l e f o r t h e o f f i c e ; o r ( 2 ) f

a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c a n d i d a t e i s i n e l i g i b l e a r e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d b y a n o t h e r p u b l i c r e c o r d

. ” I d

. § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( f

) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. A n d S e c t i o n 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( g ) s t a t e s : “ W h e n p r e s e n t e d w i t h a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p l a c e o n t h e b a l l o t o r

a n o t h e r p u b l i c r e c o r d c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t t o a c a n d i d a t e ’ s e l i g i b i l i t y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t y s h a l l

p r o m p t l y r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d

. I f t h e a u t h o r i t y d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s i n e l i g i b i l i t y a s p r o v i d e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( f )

, t h e a u t h o r i t y s h a l l d e c l a r e t h e c a n d i d a t e i n e l i g i b l e

. ” I d

. § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( g ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E § 8 1

. 0 5 1 ( b ) ( “ E a c h p e r s o n l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l

, n o t l a t e r t h a n t h e 1 0 t h 10

d a y a f t e r t h e p e r s o n ’ s a d m i s s i o n t o p r a c t i c e , e n r o l l i n t h e s t a t e b a r b y r e g i s t e r i n g w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t

. ” )

.

T E X

. S T A T E B A R R

. a r t

. X I I

, § 6 ( A )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 11

2 0 0 5 ) ( “ E v e r y m e m b e r s h a l l c o m p l e t e f i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) h o u r s o f

c o n t i n u i n g l e g a l e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g e a c h c o m p l i a n c e y e a r a s

p r o v i d e d b y t h i s a r t i c l e

. ” )

.

T E X

. S T A T E B A R R

. a r t

. X I I

, § 2 ( L )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 12

2 0 0 5 ) ( “ ‘ M C L E c o m p l i a n c e y e a r ’ m e a n s t h e t w e l v e ( 1 2 ) m o n t h p e r i o d t h a t b e g i n s e a c h y e a r o n t h e f i r s t d a y o f a n

a t t o r n e y ’ s b i r t h m o n t h a n d e n d s o n t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e m o n t h t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s b i r t h m o n t h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r

. ” )

.



### 3

## of the compliance y ear to complete the require ments. Fa ilure to comply with the annual 1 3



## require ment results in automatic suspension. 1 4



## MCL E reg ulations rec og nize sever al exemptions to MCL E require ments. An exemption is

g ood for a

n entire c ompliance y ear

or not at all:

An exemption or specia l case status shall apply to the entire MCL E compliance y ear (first day of the birth month throug h the last day of the month immediately prec eding
the birth month). Any chang e in status during the compliance y ear shall be promptly

repor ted to the MCL E Direc tor on the appr opriate r eporting form. 1 5



## One e x emption is for lawy ers who a re not pra cticing :

Members who have not e ng ag ed in the practice of law in Texas during the entirety
of an MCL E compliance y ear are elig ible to claim an exemption from the MCL E require ments. Members who are eng ag ed in the prac tice of law at the beg inning of

a MCL E compliance y ear but who later cea se from prac tice during that compliance

y ear are not eligible f

or this non-prac ticing e x emption. 1 6



## MCL E rules and reg ulation s d o n o t i m p ose a deadline for claiming an exemption other than the

deadline f or complianc e.

T E X

. S T A T E B A R R

. a r t

. X I I

, § 8 ( B )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 13

2 0 0 5 ) ( “ A m e m b e r w h o h a s n o t c o m p l e t e d h i s o r h e r C L E r e q u i r e m e n t s b y t h e f i r s t d a y o f

t h e b i r t h m o n t h

, w i l l r e c e i v e

a n a u t o m a t i c g r a c e p e r i o d t h r o u g h t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e b i r t h m o n t h t o c o m p l e t e a n d r e p o r t a n y r e m a i n i n g C L E c r e d i t s

. M e m b e r s s h a l l n o t b e f i n e d o r p e n a l i z e d f

o r c o m p l e t i n g a n d r e p o r t i n g C L E c r e d i t s b y t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e b i r t h m o n t h ( g r a c e p e r i o d )

. ” )

.

T E X

. S T A T E B A R R

. a r t

. X I I

, § 8 ( E )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 14

2 0 0 5 ) ( “ I f

b y t h e l a s t b u s i n e s s d a y o f t h e f o u r t h m o n t h f

o l l o w i n g t h e b i r t h m o n t h ( o r r e p o r t i n g m o n t h i f t h e m e m b e r h a s b e e n g r a n t e d a n e x t e n s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s a r t i c l e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f

C L E r e q u i r e m e n t s ) t h e m e m b e r h a s s t i l l n o t

c u r e d h i s o r h e r n o n

- c o m p l i a n c e , t h e m e m b e r s h a l l b e a u t o m a t i c a l l y s u s p e n d e d f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w i n T e x a s

. . . . ” )

B u t a u t o m a t i c s u s p e n s i o n i s n o t i m m e d i a t e

. S e c t i o n 7

. 1 o f t h e T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s g i v e s l a w y e r s a n a d d i t i o n a l

t h r e e m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e g r a c e p e r i o d i n w h i c h t o c o m p l y o r t o s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x p l a i n t h e i r n o n

- c o m p l i a n c e

. S t a t e B a r o f

T e x a s , T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s § 7

. 1

, a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w

. t e x a s b a r

. c o m / C o n t e n t / N a v i g a t i o n M e n u / F o r L a w y e r s /

M C L E / M C L E R u l e s / M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s

. p d f

.

S t a t e B a r o f T e x a s , T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s § 5

. 0

. 15

I d

. § 5

. 3

. 1

. 16



### 4

## R am i rez was born in November

. State Ba r rec ords establish that she claimed the non

prac ticing exemption on November 21, 2008, and cea sed to claim it on November 3, 20 0 9

, afte r

having fully satisfied her MCL E require ment s fo r h er compliance y ear ending October 31, 2009

(“CY 2009”). Ramirez contends that the exemption was for the compliance y ear ending October 31,

2008 (“CY 2008”), just prior to her claim for exemption

, an d thus does not prec lude her from

meeting the constitu t i onal prac tice require ment. Sanchez arg ues that Ramirez was ineligible to

prac tice law from the date she claimed the exemption until she chang ed her status, and is e stopped

from asse rting otherwise.

The other public rec ord evidenc e cited to us comes from two sworn statements provided to

the parties by the Clerk of this Court and two published State Ba r list s o f licensed lawy ers not

elig ible to prac tice law in Texas. The Clerk stated that rec ords in his custody ref lected that Ramirez

“has never been admi n i s tratively suspended from the practice of law si nce she was first licensed”

and that

eff ective November 21, 2008 to November 5, 2009 M s

. R ami rez claimed the
Minimum Continui ng L eg al Educa tion (MCL E) non-pra cticing exemption and was,
t h ere fore

, not elig ible to prac tice law in Texas while claiming this exemption.
Members who are not curr ently prac ticing law in Texas can rema in on the active rolls
but claim the MCL E non-pra cticing exemption to be exempt from the annual MCL E

requ irements. The rec ords further ref lect Ms. Ramirez lifted the MCL E nonprac ticing e x emption on November 5, 2009. 1 7

A s n o t e d

, o t h e r S t a t e B a r r e c o r d s s h o w t h a t R a m i r e z n o t i f i e d t h e S t a t e B a r t h a t s h e n o l o n g e r c l a i m e d e x e m p t 17

s t a t u s o n N o v e m b e r 3

, r a t h e r t h a n N o v e m b e r 5

. T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s i m m a t e r i a l

.



### 5

## The two State Ba r lists, one da

ted Dec ember

31, 2008, and the other J uly 2, 2009, both w ithin CY

2009, include Ramirez’s name

. 1 8



## The court of appea ls noted the parties’ “disag ree ment [about] the time period that the

[ex emption] applied to” but conclude d, based on the Clerk’s statement, that the exemption cover ed

the period between t h e d ate Ramirez claimed it and the date she relinquished it. We think this 1 9



## conclusion misconstrues the Clerk’s statement and the rules and reg ulations g overning MCL E

require ments.

The Clerk’s statements that Ramirez’s claim of exemption was “ef fec tive” from the date she

made it until she lifted it, and that she was ineligible to prac tice “while claiming ” the exemption, are

both literally corr ect but do not resolve the disag ree ment over the period cove red by the exemption.

Specifica lly

, the statements do not f orec lose the conclusion that the claim made during CY 2008’s

g rac e p eriod cover ed that compliance y ear , or that the revoc ation made during CY 2009’s g rac e

period di d n o t re instate Ramirez’s MCL E require ments for that compliance y ear

. The statements

establish only the t ime period during which the claim wa s b ei n g made. To rea d the s tatements t o

mean that Ramirez was ineligible to prac tice law from the time she claimed the exemption until she

lifted it is inconsist ent with MCL E rules a nd reg ulations.

A l e t t e r d a t e d O c t o b e r 3 1

, 2 0 1 1

, f r o m t h e S t a t e B a r ’ s e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r r e f e r s t o a t t a c h e d “ r e c o r d s o f t h e 18

M e m b e r s h i p D e p a r t m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e M C L E n o n

- p r a c t i c i n g e x e m p t i o n s t a t u s f r o m N o v e m b e r 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 8

– 1 1 / 5 / 2 0 0 9

o f R e b e c c a R a m i r e z

. ” A l e t t e r d a t e d N o v e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 1

, f r o m t h e S t a t e B a r ’ s M C L E C o m p l i a n c e D i r e c t o r s t a t e s t h a t

R a m i r e z ’ s c l a i m e d e x e m p t i o n “ c o v e r [ e d ] M C L E c o m p l i a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e 2 0 0 8 M C L E c o m p l i a n c e y e a r w h i c h

b e g a n N o v e m b e r 1

, 2 0 0 7 a n d e n d e d O c t o b e r 3 1

, 2 0 0 8

. ” W e n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r e i t h e r s t a t e m e n t i n o u r a n a l y s i s a n d

e x p r e s s n o v i e w o n w h e t h e r t h e l e t t e r s c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d “ p u b l i c r e c o r d s ” o r c o u l d b e u s e d t o q u e s t i o n o r e x p l a i n o t h e r

p u b l i c r e c o r d s

.

_ _ _ S

. W

. 3 d

_ _ _ ,

_ _ _ ( T e x

. A p p

. – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 1 2

, o r i g

. p r o c e e d i n g )

. 19



### 6

## Under those rules an d reg ulations, a claim of exemption has no eff ect on a lawy er’ s

obliga tion to comply with MCL E require ments until the deadline for their completion, which is the

end of the g rac e period
— the lawy er’ s birth month
— afte r the compliance y ear

. The reg ulations 2 0



## ex p ressly contemplate that a lawy er’ s status may chang e during the y ear

. A l awy er might claim 2 1



## the non-pra cticing exemption ear ly in the compliance y ear , fully intending not to prac tice, y et chang e

her mind befor e the compliance deadline, withdraw the claim, and complete all MCL E require ments

for the y ear

. Or a lawy er can wait until the compliance deadline
— or perha ps even later
— to claim

an exemption from MCL E for the prec eding y ear

. All that matters is whether the lawy er is entitled

to an exemption from MCL E requir ements by the dea dline for c ompletion.

Be cause a compliance y ear ’s g rac e period overla ps the following compliance y ear , a claim

of ex emption made during the g rac e period could cover either y ear , but only i f t h e l aw y er did not

prac tice during any part of that y ear

. A claim durin g t h e gra ce p eriod cannot rela te to the 2 2



## compliance y ear just ended if the lawy er prac ticed at all during that y ear , or to the compliance y ear

just beg inning if the lawy er pr actice s at any time during that y ear

.

A lawy er claiming the MCL E non-pra cticing exemption is not classed as an inactive member

of the State Ba

r. A lawy er who “file[s] with the executive direc tor and the cler k of the supreme court

A f u r t h e r e x t e n s i o n i s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r v e r y l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s i f r e q u e s t e d b e f o r e t h e e n d o f t h e g r a c e 2 0

p e r i o d

. S t a t e B a r o f T e x a s , T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s § 5

. 1 1

.

S t a t e B a r o f T e x a s , T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s § 5

. 0

. 21

T h e e v i d e n c e b e f

o r e u s i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e g r a c e p e r i o d

, a l a w y e r c a n c l a i m a n e x e m p t i o n o n t h e S t a t e 22

B a r ’ s w e b s i t e o n l y f

o r t h e c o m p l i a n c e y e a r j u s t e n d e d

. R a m i r e z c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s i s w h a t s h e d i d

.



### 7

## written notice reque sting enrollment as an inactive member”

, by statute, “may not prac tice law in 2 3



## th is s ta te”. No such prohibition is associate d with a claim for the MCL E non-pra cticing exempti o n

.

2 4



## A lawy er may claim the exemption prospec tively in g ood faith y et return to prac tice at will, so long

as she then complies with MCL E require ments. An inactive member may return to active status only

“upon written application to the cler k and pay ment of fee s for the curr ent y ear .” No such formality 2 5



## is require d for revoking the MCL E exemption. MCL E reg ulations require that a chang e in status be

“promptly repor

ted”, but delay is not p en al i z ed

. Not until all deadlines for completing 2 6



## require ments have pa ssed is the pena lty of suspension for non- compliance imposed.

The public rec ords befor e us do not indicate that Ramirez was ever suspended from prac tice.

They indicate only

that Ramirez might have claimed the MCL E non-pra cticing exemption for CY

2009
— a y ear in which she actua lly met her MCL E require ments — but probably intended to claim

the exemption for CY 2008. The State Ba r rec ords showi n g R am i re z l isted among suspended

lawy ers on two dates during CY 2009 raise a question whether she was elig ible to prac tice, but the

only appar ent basis for such suspensions would have been that she failed t o m ee t MCL E

T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E § 8 1

. 0 5 2 ( b )

. 23

I d

. § 8 1

. 0 5 3 ( a ) ; s e e a l s o T E X

. D IS C IP L IN A R Y R U L E S P R O F ’ L C O N D U C T R

. 8

. 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 1 )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T 24

C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ A l a w y e r s h a l l n o t

. . . e n g a g e i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w w h e n t h e l a w y e r i s o n i n a c t i v e s t a t u s o r w h e n t h e l a w y e r ’ s r i g h t t o p r a c t i c e h a s b e e n s u s p e n d e d o r t e r m i n a t e d

. . . . ” ) ; T e x

. R U L E S

D IS C IP L IN A R Y P

. R

. 1

. 0 6 ( V ) ( 6 )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A

- 1 ( W e s t S u p p

. 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ ‘ P r o f e s s i o n a l M i s c o n d u c t ’ i n c l u d e s

. . . [ e ] n g a g i n g i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w e i t h e r d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f s u s p e n s i o n o r w h e n

o n i n a c t i v e s t a t u s

. ” )

.

T E X

. S T A T E B A R R

. a r t

. X I I

, § 7 ( C )

, r e p r i n t e d i n T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. , t i t

. 2

, s u b t i t l e G

, a p p

. A ( W e s t 25

2 0 0 5 )

.

S t a t e B a r o f T e x a s , T e x a s M C L E R e g u l a t i o n s § 5

. 0

.

26



### 8

## require ments in CY 2008, which could have been cover ed by her non-pra cticing exemption. Public

rec ords cer

tainly do not “conc lusively establish[] ” that she did not prac tice law during that period.

The county chair was therefor e not authorized, let alone required, to decla re Ramirez i n el i gi b l e, 2 7



## and the c ourt of appe als clea rly abused its discre tion in reac hing the contra ry conclusion.

Acc ording ly

, we g rant Ramirez’s petition for mandamus and, without hear ing oral

arg ument, direc t the court of appea ls to vaca te i ts order of March 9, 2012. We are confide nt the 2 8



## court of appea ls will promptly comply

, and our writ will issue only if it does not. We have alre ady

order ed the county chair to take all actions nece ssary for Ramirez’s name to be place d on the ballot,

and the c hair ha s complied.

OP INION DELIVERED: April 27, 2012

T E X

. E L E C

. C O D E § 1 4 5

. 0 0 3 ( f )

. 27

T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 5 2

. 8 ( c )

. 28



### 9