EA 

### ORNEY GENERAL OF-XAS

March 23, 1962

HonorableW. G. Wallev. Jr. OpinionNo. WW-1284 Acting Criminal Dist&t Attorney - Courthouse Re: Beaumont, Texas

DearMr. Walley:
Your letter requesting an opinion as follows: Whether the Commissioner's Court of Jefferson Countyhas the authority to retain legal counsel to defend certainmembers of a Grand Jury in cases brought againstthem under the stated facts. reads in part

"On or about the 1st day of October, 

### 1961, the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County and the 136th Judicial District Court each empaneleda Grand Jury for Jefferson County,Texas. These Grand Juries served until the 5th day of December, 1961, when at such time the Judges of the above-mentioned Courts discharged each Grand Jury subject to recall by written orders duly filed with the District Clerk of Jefferson County in accordancewith Article 372, C.C.P. Each Grand Jury was notified of such action in open court andwas thereby formally dischargedby the Court subject to recall. The Criminal District Court Grand Jury at such session, made it known to the Judge of said Court that they had two indictmentsand a report which they desired to returnbefore being discharged. The Judge of the Criminal District Court then and there refused to accept said report and indictmentsand dischargedthe Grand Jury subject to recall. Elevenmembers of this Grand Jury then proceededback to the Grand Jury room and subsequentlyreleased a statementto the press. "A short time after the release of this statement, elevenmembers of this Grand Jury were sued for libel and indictedby the 136thHon. W. G. Walley, Jr. page 2 

### (w-1284)

District Court Grand Jury for divulging grand jury proceedingspredicatedupon this released statement. "The CriminalDistrict Court Grand Jury has now requested the Commissioners' Court of Jefferson County to employ legal counsel in defense of the above suit and indictments.
"We now request an opinion of your office on whether or not the Commissioners' Courthas authority to retain legal counsel to defend members of a Grand Jury in suits brought against them under the above alleged facts."
A Commissioners'Court is a court of limited juriadiction and has only such powers as are conferredupon it by the Constitutionand laws of this Stateby express terms or necessary implication. Hill v. Sterrett, 252 SW2d 

### 766 (Civ.App. 1952, error ref. n.r.e.); Canales -p-Ah Lau lin 147 Tex. 169, 214 SW2d 451 (1948)iess ountv v. State, 127 Tex. 343, 92 SW2d 1011 (1936);Roper v. Hall, 280 SW 289 (Civ.App. 1925).
It has been repeatedlyheld by this office that the Commissioners'Courthas the power and authority to employ attorneys in the prosecutionof its claims and suits and pay for such servicesout of the General Fund of the countywhere the county, as a whole, is interested in and affectedby such proceedings. Attorney General's OpinionsV-995 (1950);V-232 (1947r;O-4955 (1942);and WW-662.

. In Attorney General's OpinionV-232 (1947),this officeheld that a County Commissionerwas not entitled to reimbursement from the county forhis attorney's fees in defending a suit againsthim and his bonding Company for damages arising from the Commissioner'snegligence ,in failing to repair a countybridge. At first the county was not named as a party to such suit. Later the county was named as defendant and the Commissioners'Court employed the CountyAttorney in defending the suit against the county. The Commissioners'Courtwas held to be authorized to employ and pay the attorney for his services in defending the county after the countywas made a party to the suit, the reason being that the county as a whole then became interested in and affectedby the suit.. .

Hon. W. G. Walley, Jr. page 3 (WW-1284)

In a well reasoned Attorney General'sOpinion O-4955, citing the City National,Bank of Austin v. Presidio, case, 

### 26SW 775 (lS94) it was held that the Commissioners'Court couldh&e an attorney to represent the Commissioners'Court as proceedings were institutedwhich affected their official acts and the county, as a whole, was interested in and affected by such proceedings. An individual employee of the countywas not entitled to counsel as he was sued inhis individual capacity,and such suit didn't interferewith his official acts.
In the present case neither Jefferson County nor the Commissioners'Court of that countywereever named as defendants. The design and effect of the suit against the Grand Jurymembers is not to obstruct or control the performanceof their official acts, but to recover damages for alleged acts contrary to the legal performance of their duties. In view of the foregoing, it cannotbe said that the county as a whole was interestedor affectedby such a suit. Hence, in our opinion the Commissioners'Court is not .authorised to appoint an attorney for members of the Grand Jury in defending such suit.
SUMMARY The Commissioners'Court of Jefferson County is not authoriaed to hire an attorney to defend the Grand Jury members since the county as a whole is not interestedor affected.
Yours very truly,

WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

1RS:bjh
APPROVED: -d Irwin R. Salmanson AssistantAttorney General

OPIXIOH COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John.Reeves ArthurSand1i.n Henry Braswell Virgil Pullism REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.