### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 413 -CV

Ra ul G ar c ia , A ppe lla nt

v.
Com m ission for Law yer D iscipli ne , Appellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN30255 0 , HO NORAB LE MARKD. DAV IDSO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Thi s d i s ci p l i n ary

ac t i o nwa s b ro u gh tb y

t h e C o m m i s s i o nfor L awy er D iscipline ag ainst Raul Gar cia, a Texas-licensed attorney , for violations of rules 5.04( a), 5.04( b), 5.05(b) , and 7.01(a ) of the T exas Disciplinary

Rules of Professional C onduct. On cross-motions for summ ary judgme nt, the district court g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt fo r the Com mis sio n a s to ru le s 5. 04 (a ), 5. 05 (b ), and 7. 01 (a ), and fo r G arc ia

as t o ru l e 5

. 0 4 (b ). Ga rc i a ap p ea l s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s j u d gm en tp ar t i al l y gra n t i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o nsummary judgme nt ag ainst him and partially denying his summary judgme nt motions . We affir m the district court’s jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND

At rele vant times, Garc ia was e mploy ed by Cristo Vive, Christian Social Services, Inc. Cristo V iv e is a n o np r o f it o r g an iz a ti o n th a t, b e g inn in g in th e late 1 9 8 0 s , p r o v id e d s e r v ic e s that have included assisting individuals with i mmigration-relate d leg al matters, tra nslation work, and soc ial-ser viceThese a ctivities included: 1 1. Con tr a c tin g wi th ind ivi du a ls to re pr e se nt the m in pr e pa ri ng , fi lin g , or

a ssi sti ngwi th the p r e p ar a ti o no r

f il in g o f an y d o c u me n ts w it

h th e U n it e d

St a te s I mm ig r a ti o nand Natura liz ation Service ; 2. Advising individuals as to their leg al rig hts, t he advisa bility and time limits in the making of cla ims for temporar y and per manent re sidence , as we ll as U.S. citiz enship; 3. Advising individuals of their r ights, duties, and pr ivilege s under the la w; 4. Advising individuals that they do not r equire the advice or service s of a duly licensed a t t o r n e y; 5. Soliciti ng leg al servic es on beha lf of anothe r for remune ration; 6. Ho ldi ngits e lf

ou t a s an atto rn e y

a uth or ize d to pr a c tic e law i n th e Sta te of Te xas; 7. Holding itself out a s qualified to re nder pr ofessional leg al servic es of a ny kind; 8. Advising individuals re g arding(a) which spec ific docume nts or forms mig ht be nece ssary for f iling with a c ourt or gover nmental ag ency

to acc omplish an indivi dual’s 2 ref err als. I t is undisput ed that some of the se ac tiviti es come within the s tatutory definition of the pra ctice of law. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 81.101(a) (West 2005). I t is also undisput ed t h at C ri s t o Vive has char g ed fe es for

these leg al servic es ra

ng ing f rom $250 to $4 5 0 , dependingon the nature of ser vice provided, ser

ved betwe en 3,400 and 5,400 clients annually during the 1999-2001 tax y ear s, and collec ted fee s rang ing f

rom approximately

$230,000 to $619,000 annually during that period. Cristo Vive was previously the targ et of a proce eding initiated by the Unauthor ized Practice of L aw Committee (UPL C). See id. §§ 81.103-.104 (West 2005)

. Cristo Vive ultim ately enter ed into a

c on se nt d e c re e with the U PL C un de r w hic h Cr ist o V ive “ and its a g e nts , o ff

ic e rs , d ir e c tor s, se rv ants , e mpl oy e e s, su c c e ss ors and a ssi g ns ” we re e njo ine d f ro m e ng a g ingin a

ra ng e of a c tiv iti e s r e late d to imm ig ratio n le g a l se rv ic e s, su bje c t to the fo llo wi nglim itatio n o n th a t pr oh ibi tio n: 1o b

j ec t i v e; (b) how to properly fill out such paper s; (c) w here to corre ctly fill out such paper s; or (d) how to pr esent a dditional inf o rm at i o n t o a cour

t, gove rnment ag ency

or qu a s i

- j u d i c i a l b o dy; 9. Employ ing the words “immig ration ser vices” or “imm igr ation consultant” in re lation to a ny bu sin e ss i t c on du c ts; 10 . A dv e rt isi ngor

re pres e nti ngin wri tte n o r e le c tr on ic me dia or in a ny do c ume nts or din ari ly su bmi tte d to the Un ite d St a te s Immi g ratio n a nd Natur a lizatio n Se rv ic e that it rende rs or c an re nder “ immigr at i o n service s,” is an “immig ration consultant,” or any service s relating to U nited States citizenship application, non-immi g rant or immig rant status; or 11. Assisting any

other individual in the unauthorized pra ctice of law. Ex pressly excluded from the pr o h i b i t ed activities were tr anslating documents; taking identification pictures; takingand filing I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (I NS) fing erpr in

t f orms; teachingand testing Eng lish as a sec ond lang uag e, history , g overnme nt, or other c lasses; notary ser v i ces; and “providingcommunitary

service s to low income persons,” such as r efe rra ls to social service ag encie s and c ha ri ta ble or g anizatio ns re g ard ingfo od , s he lte r, and be ne fi ts. The parties ag ree that the Cristo Vive consent decr ee mistake nly ref ers to 8 C.F.R. § 229.1 2 instead of 8 C.F .R. § 292.2 and that this is purely a ty pog raphic al er

ror. 3 except to the extent it is leg ally permitted t o do so by 8 C.F.R. § [292.2] and except 2 to the extent it perf

orms any such ac ts and conduc t under the dire ction, supervision and c on tr ol o f a

me mbe r o f t

he State B ar o f T e xas.
Fed er al re g ulation permits non-profit org anizations meeting c erta in criteria to obtain rec og nition or

a c c re dit a tio n f

ro m th e B oa

rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls p e rm it ti ng the m to de sig nate a re pr e se ntativ e to pr a c tic e be fo re the B oa

rd or I NS. 8 C. F .R. § 2 92 .2 . Cr ite ri a fo r r e c ognit ion

inc lud e “ ha [vin g ] at

its disposal adequate knowledg e, information and experience ” and “mak[ing] only nominal char g es . . . for persons g iven assistance .” Id. § 292.2(a)

. The Commi ssion ha s acknow ledg ed that “[i] f Cristo Vive and i t s n o n -l aw y er

em p l o y ee s we re re co gn i z ed/ ac cr ed i t ed , ” s t at e u n au t h o ri z edp ra ct i ce o f l aw (U P L)I n h is i nte rr og a tor y re sp on se s, wh ic h a

re a pa rt of the summa

ry -j ud g me nt r e c or d, Ga

rc ia 3 explained the “proc ess by which immigr ation clients are assisted by Cristo Vive” and hi s role in that pr oc e ss: Client comes to Cristo Vive and asks for assistance

. I f the a ssistance re quires leg al advice they

are told that only an attorney can a nswer that question and that they cannot g ive leg al advice . Th ey ar e i n formed that there is an attorney in the office [who] can a dvise them. I f t h ey wa n t to see the attorney the attorne y

perf orms an interview, of

fer s a leg al re medy

if there i s o n e available , and pre scribes the appropr iate applications. I f they want to hire Cristo Vive to fill out the p resc ribed applications the attorney

will direct, super

vise and c ontrol the servic e.
Ga rc ia fu rt he r d e sc ri be d h is d

uti e s a s an atto rn e y

wi th C ri sto Vi ve a s f

oll ow s: My du tie s are to s up e rv ise , d ir e c t and c on tr ol a ll s e rv ic e s p ro vid e d by the pa ra le g a ls 4 limit ations “would yield to this federa l law.” How ever , it is undi sput ed t h at Cristo Vive has neve r
succe eded in obtainingthe re quired status.

I n th e a ft e rm a th o f t

he c on se nt d e c re e , Cr ist o V ive , thro ug h its bo ard of dir e c tor s,
and Ga rc ia e xec ute d a

n e mpl oy me nt c on tr a c t w he re by

Ga rc ia a g re e d to se rv e a s th e e nti ty ’s “ I N- HO USE STAFF ATTORNEY . . . to supervise, direct and control all l eg al servic es off ere d to the community

by Cristo Vive.” I t is undisputed that Cristo Vive and Gar cia cra fted the c ontrac t lang uag e and the structure of their r elationship with the intent of coming within the second e x ception of the conse n t d ec re e; i.e., Cristo Vive’s ac ts and conduct otherwise constituti ng UPL would be “perfor m[ ed] . . . under the dire ction, supervision and c ontrol of a membe r of the State B ar of Tex as ”— Ga rcia. Garc ia ac cepte d the position on J une 26, 2001.

Th e r e a f t e r , G a r c i a pr ov ide d le g a l se rv ic e s to Cr ist o V ive ’s c lie nts . G arc ia wo rk e d f ull -t ime in this capac ity

for Cristo Vive and did not otherwise pra ctice la w other tha

n occa sional pro bono work thr ou g h V olu

nte e r L e g a l Se rv ic e s. I t is un dis pu te d that a lth ou g h Cr ist o V ive c ha rg e s f e e s v ary ingwi th 3in connec tion with their petitions for status as lawful per man en t re s i dents or as citizens of the United St at es t hat I may have a dvised. I n initial consultation, I de te rm ine wh a t f

or ms, if any , w ill a c hie ve the re su lt d e sir e d b y the c lie nt, and a dv ise them acc ording ly . I f the c lient hired Cristo Vive to ty pe out forms a

nd prepa re, I direc t, supervise, a

nd control t he staff

in ty ping out the f

orm, and a fter the y

are ty ped out, I revie w t o make sure every thing was answe red c orre ctly . Ithen authorize the client to mail the application [to] the [Bure au of Citi zenship and I mmigration Se r v ic e s ] o r [D e p artm e n t o f

St a te ]. 5 the servic es provided to e ach c lient, Garc ia rec eived a salary of approximately $50,000 per y ear that was not tied to the ty

pe of se rvice s he provided or the number of

clients he c ounseled. I n J une 2003, the Commission filed a disciplinary proce eding agai n s t Garcia a lleg ing vio la tio ns of

the fo llo wi ngpr ov isi on s o f t he Te xas D isc ipl ina

ry Rul e s o f P ro fe ssi on a l Co nd uc t:

! 5.04(a) (fe e-splitting with a non- lawy er) ; ! 5.04(b) ( forming a par tnership with a non-la

wy er) ; ! 5.05(b) (assisting a person who is not a member of

the state ba

r in committing UPL ); ! 7.01(a) (pra cticing in private pra ctice unde r a tra de name ).
Th e Com mis sio n s ub se qu e ntl y so ug ht pa

rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt that Ga

rc ia ha d vio late d e a c h of

the se rules. Ga rcia filed a response to the motion and separ ate cross-motions for traditional and “no e vidence ” summary judgme nt r eg arding eac h of the a lleg ed rule violations. The district court g rante d the motions of both the Commissi on and Garcia in part and denied them in par t. I t rende red judg ment that Gar cia ha d violated rules 5.04( a), 5.05( b), and 7.01( a) but had not f ormed a partne rship with a non-law y er in violation of ru le 5. 05 (b ). Th e c ourt fu rt he r a dju dg e d th a t th e pr op e r d isc ipl ine fo r G arc ia ’s vio latio ns wa s a pu bli c repr imand with an awa

rd of c osts. This appeal ensue d.Al tho ug h w e c on str ue Ga rc ia ’s bri e f t o c ha lle ng e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of bo th h is 4 traditional and no-e vidence summary -judg ment motions, hi s brief a rg ues o n ly

the g rounds he asser ted in his traditional motion, which are a lso substantially simil ar to those in his response to the Commi ssion’s motion. 6 AN AL YSI S Gar cia a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s ju d g me n t t h a t h e v io late d

r u le s 5

. 0 4 ( a ) , 5 .05(b)

and 7. 01 (a ). Th e Com mis sio n d oe s n ot a pp e al th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt f or Ga rc ia reg ardingrule 5.04(b)

. Stand ard of review

We reviewthe district court’s summar y ju d gm en t d e novo. ValenceOperating Co.

v . D or se tt , 16 4 S.W.3 d 6 56 , 6 61 (T e x. 20 05 ); Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). When review ing a summary judgme nt, we take as t rue all evidenc e favorable to the non-movant, and we indulge ever y rea sonable infere nce and re solve any doubts in the non-movant’s favor. ValenceOperating Co. , 1 64 S.W. 3d a t 66 1; Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d at 215. Summary judgme nt is proper whe n there ar e n o d i s p u t ed issues of mater ial fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Shell Oil Co. v. Khan , 1 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 1 n . 4 (T ex . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d at 215-16).

When, as here , both parties move for summ ary judgme nt on overla pping g rounds and the district court g rants one motion and de nies the other, w e ordina rily revi e w th e s u mm a r y - ju d g me nt evidence prese nted by

both sides, determine a ll questions presented, a nd rende r the judgme nt that the district court should have re ndere d. Texas W orkers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advoc ates of Tex. , 136 S.W .3d 643, 648 (Tex. 2004). 4Garci a su g g e sts tha

t th e UPL pr oh ibi tio n, a s a

ba rr ie r t o ma

rk e t e ntr y , ma y a lso se rv e to 5 a dv anc e the pure ly e c on omi c int e re sts of a tto rn e y s a g a ins t c omp e tit ion fr om o the r s e rv ic e pr ov ide rs , to the detriment of consumers. I t is undisputed that both the UP L C proce eding ag ainst Cristo Vive and the Commission’s procee ding a g ainst Garc ia wer e instigated by a loca l immi gra t i o n attorney whose c lient base ove rlaps with the population ser v ed b y C risto Vive. We must decline Ga rcia ’s invitation to revisit the policy decisions of the le g islature and supr eme c ourt that are ref lected in the s t a tu t e s an d

r u l e s t h a tw e ar e b o u n d

t o a p p l y. Se c tio n 8 1. 10 1( a ) o f t

he g ov e rnme nt c od e de fi ne s th e “ pr a c tic e of law” a s: 6 the pre paratio n o f a plea ding or other doc ument incident to an ac tion or special proce eding or the mana g ement of t he ac tion or proce eding on behalf of a c lient befor e a judge in court as well as a se rvice rende red out of c ourt, including the g iving of advic e or the rende ring of any service requiring the use of leg al skill or knowledg e, such as pr epar ing a

will, contrac t, or other instrument, the leg al eff ect of which under 7 Ru l e 5 . 0 5 (b ): As s i s ti n g UPL

Rule 5.05(b) provide s that a lawy er sha ll not “assist a person wh o is not a member of the bar in the unauthorized prac tice of law.” Tex. Disciplinar y R. Prof ’l Cond u ct 5

. 0 5 (b ), re

pr inte d in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subti t. G app. A (West 2005) (Tex

. State Ba r R

. art. X, § 9). This prohibition ag ainst assisting UPL , as we ll as the underly ing ban on UPLitself, is rooted in a “pe rce ived nee d to protect individuals and the public from the mistakes of the untra ined and the sc hemes of the unscrupulous, who

are not subject to the judicially imposed disciplinary

standards of

competenc e, re sponsibili ty , and

acc ountability .” Te x . Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 5.05 cmt. 1. 5 The Commission’s complaint that Garcia assisted in UPLis predicated on the UPL of Cristo Vive. Cristo Vive’s alleg ed UPL , in turn, is predicated on t he ac ts of Gar cia in providingleg al

se rv ic e s in

the name of

Cr ist o V ive to i ts cu sto me rs , whi c h is imput e d to Cr ist o V ive a s G arc ia ’s pr inc ipa l. I t is undisput ed that the se rvice s Garc ia provided to third parties as an attorney for Cristo Vive included those constituting the pr actice of law. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 81.101(a) ; see al s o Un a u t horized 6the fa cts and c onclusions involved must be care fully deter mined.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 81.101(a) (West 2005). Howe ver, this def inition “is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branc h of the power and authority under both [chapter 81 of the g overnme nt code] and the a djudicated c ases to determine whether other service s and acts not enumerated may constitute the prac tice of la w.” Id. § 81.101(b). Cf. A m e r ic a n H

o m e A s s u r a n c e Co

. , I

n c . v . U n a u th o r iz e d

P r a c ti c e o

f L a w Comm. , 7 1 2 1 S

. W

. 3 d

8 3 1 , 8 3 9 -4 2 (T ex . Ap p . — E as t l an d 2 0 0 3 , p et
. gra n t ed ) ( ci t i n g Utiliti es In c . v . M on tgo me ry , 138 S.W .2d 1062, 1064 (Tex. 1940) (sug g esting that corpor ate pr actice of law imputed f rom acts of lawy er a g ent would not constitute unauthorized prac tice of la

w if cor poration reta ined direc t interest in matter); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 15 5 S. W.3 d 59 0, 59 8- 59 9 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io 20 04 , p e t. f

ile d) (s a me ). Th e Te xas S up re me Court has g rante d revie w in American H ome , and it rema ins pending befor e the c ourt. Ga rc ia a lso su g g e sts that “th e Com me nts to t he Rul e s o f P ro fe ssi on a l Co nd uc t e xpre ssl y 8 pe rm it Ga rc ia to un de rt a ke his e mpl oy me nt wi th Cr ist o Vi ve .” F ro m c on te xt, it a pp e ars that G arc ia is refe rringto comments 4, 5, and 6 to rule 5.04, which he sug g ests “conte mplate situations in which a lawy er ma

y be hire d by

an org aniza t i o n t o provide leg al servic es to another person,” including e mp lo y me n t w it h le g a l- a id of

fice s. S ee Tex. Disciplinary

R. Prof’l Conduct 5.04 cmts. 4-6. As dis c us se d b e low , r

ule 5. 04 is c on c e rn e d w ithma int a ini ng the pr of e ssi on a l in de pe nd e nc e of

lawy e rs . The thre e comments Ga

rcia cites addr ess the professional-indepe ndence conce rn whe re la wy ers a re 8 P r a ct i ce o

f L aw Comm. v. Cortez , 6 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 , 5 0 ( T e x. 1 9 8 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a dv i s i n g c l i e n t a s to wh e the r t o f

ile imm ig ratio n f

or m c on st it ut es pr a c tic e of

law) . T o d a te , T e xas l aw r e ma ins that, at le a st wher e a c orporation has no direct inter est in leg al work pe rfor med by a lawy er ag ent for the benef it of a third party , the corporation has prac ticed law throug h that lawy er. See San Antonio Bar Ass’n v. Guardian Abstract & Titl e Co. , 2 91 S.W. 2d 69 7, 70 1- 02 (T e x. 19 56 ); He xt erTitl e &Abstract Co. v. Grievanc e Com m. , F ift h Co ng re ssi on al D ist ., 179 S.W .2d 946, 953-54 (Te x . 1944). 7 To avoid the Commission’s entitl ement to s ummary judgme nt on this issue, Gar cia r elies principally o n t he af

firmative de fense that his actions for Cristo Vive we re e x pressly permitted by

that

e nti ty ’s c on se nt d e c re e wi th t he UPL C. As noted pre viously , the co n s en t decr ee e njoined Cristo Vive

8hired to provide leg al s ervic es t o third persons. Contrary to what Garcia sug g ests, the comments do

not imply that such ar

rang ements ar e categ orica lly permitted wit h o u t re gard to the limitations of other rule s. S

e ea lso T ex . I ns. Code Ann. § 961.303 (we st 2006) (non-pr ofit leg al-ser vice c or po ratio ns “ mus t a c t on ly

a s an a g e nt o n b e ha lf of it s part icip ants ” and a tto rn e y c on tr a c tin g to provide ser

vices for corpor ation “must be an inde pendent c ontrac tor . . . and may not be an e mploy ee of the c or po ratio n. ” ); Touchy v. H ouston Legal Found. , 432 S.W .2d 690, 694-95 (Tex . 1968) (contra sting a

non-prof it c orporation that is “ direc tly repr esentingclients as an a ttorney by signing ple adi ngs in its name , o r b y a pp e ari ngfo r s uc h c lie nts thr ou g h it s e mpl oy e e s, ” wh ic h w ou ld constitute UPL , with “a leg al aid socie ty which acts mere ly

as a c onduit or intermediar y to bring the attorney and client tog ether ,” which w ould not). 9 “and its ag ents, offic ers, dire ctors, ser vants, employ ees, suc cessor s and assig ns” fr om a rang e of ac tiviti es
re la te d to imm ig ratio n- re late d le g a l se rv ic e s, su bje c t to the fo llo wi ngpr ov isi on : except to the extent it is leg ally permitted to do so by 8 C.F.R. § [292.2] and except to the extent it perf

orms any such ac ts and conduc t under the dire ction, supervision and c on tr ol o f a

me mbe r o f t

he State B ar o f T e xas. Although G arc ia admits that Cristo Vive has not been acc redited unde r sec tion 292.2, he contends that the entity

complied with the conse nt decr ee by “per form[ing] any such acts [ otherwise pr ohibited by the dec ree ] under the direc tion, supervision and control of a member of

the State B ar of Texas”—Gar cia. I n Gar cia’ s view, compliance with the s econd e x ception alone is sufficient to bring Cr ist o V ive in c omp lia

nc e wi th th e c on se nt d e c re e be c a us e the de c re e ’s tw o e xce pti on s a re state d in the alternative, not c umulatively

. The Commi ssion disputes Gar cia’ s constructio n o f t h e consent d e c r e e , m a i n t a i n i n g t h a tC r i s t o V i v e w a s r e qu i r e d t o s a t i s f y both ex ce p t i ons to the consent dec ree ’s pr oh ibi tio ns and

tha t it s in abi lity

to o bta in r e c og nit ion

un de r s e c tio n 2 92 .2 thu s f or e c los e s it s relianc e on either

exception.We e xpre ss n o o pin ion re g ard ingthe Commis sio n’s con te nti on that pr ior

jud g me nts in 9 proce eding s broug ht by

the UPL C categ orica lly

cannot have claim- or issue-pre clusive eff ect on the Com mis sio n’ s su

bs e qu ent act ions b e c a

us e the UPL C and

the Com mis sio n—

tho ug h b oth instrumentalities of the supreme court’s r egulatory appar atus over the prac tice of la w in Texas—are
“ se pa rate ” e nti tie s. 10 We need not re ach the proper construction of the consent decr ee be cause we c onclude that Gar cia h as not raised a

fac t issue as to eac h element of any cog nizable defe nse to which it would be rele vant. While he pleade d eac h defe nse, Gar cia is unc lear in his summary -judg ment paper s and brief ing

a bo ut whe the r h e is r e lyingon fo rm e r a dju dic a tio n ( re s ju dic a ta or c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l) or

e qu ita ble estoppel. The c onsent dec ree cannot support collater al estoppel beca use the issue of whether

Cristo Vive’s actions would have constituted UPLif supervised by an attor n ey

was not fully

and fa irly

litigated. See Attorney Ge n. of Tex. v. Lavan , 83 3 S.W. 2d 95 2, 95 5 ( Te x. 19 92 ); Ea gle Prop., Ltd. v. Scharbauer , 807 S.W .2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1990). Simi larly , we conclude that Gar cia did not raise a fac t issue reg ardingthe final adjudication-on-the-me rits element of r es judicata

. Se e Am sta dt v . U nite d S tates B ra ss C

or p ., 919 S.W .2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996).

Nor c an Ga

rcia raise a fac t issue reg ardingequitable e stoppel. See City of W hite Settlement v. Super W

ash Inc ., 19 8 S. W.3 d 770 , 773 (T e x. 20 06 ) ( no tin g that “ e qu ita ble e sto pp e l w ill no t li e a g a ins t the Gover nment as ag ainst private litiga nts” bec ause “ leg islative prer og ative would be unde rmined if a g overnme nt ag ent could—through mistake, ne g lect, or a n intentional act—ef

fec tively repe al a law

by ignor ing, misre pre s enti ng , or misinterpretinga duly enac ted statute or r egulation”). W e , a c c o r d i n g l y, 9 conclude that the district court did not err in g ranting summary judgme nt that Garc ia assisted Cristo Vive in the UPL , in violation of rule 5.04(b).The Commission aptly summarized the arr ang ement in its leg al memora ndum in support 10 of its mot ion

fo r p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt: Cristo Vive and Respondent have for med a relationship t hat is analog ous to a nonlawy er ( J oe) opening “Joe’s Divorce Clini c, I nc.” a nd hiring a staff

attorney to review and sig n a ll p le a din g s, wh ile the no n- lawy e r p ro vid e s th e of fi c e sp a c e and

e q uip me nt, adver tises for Joe’s Clini c, runs the office , and collec ts a salar y substantially

larg er t h ant h a to f

t h e a t t o r n e y. P l u s , t h e d i v o r c e c l i e n t s p ay t h e i r f e e s t o J o e , w h o t h e np ays all expenses, including the attorney ’s salar y . 11 Rul e 5. 04 (a ): F e e spli tt ing

Rule 5.04(a) provides, with exceptions not ap p l i ca b l e h ere , that “a la wy er or law firm shall not share or

promise to share leg al fe es with a non-la wy er.” Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 5.04(a) , re pr inte d in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subti t. G app. A (West 2005) (Tex

. State Ba r R . art. X, § 9). The r ationale f

or this limi tation is “to prevent solicitation by lay persons of clients for la wy ers a nd to avoid encourag ing or

assisting nonlaw y ers in the pr actice of law.” Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 5.04 cmt. 1. I t is undisput ed that per sons served by Cristo Vive pay

the entity for leg al servic es provided by or under the supervision of Ga

rcia , that these reve nues are commingle d with other re venues, a nd that thi s c omm on

po ol o f r e ve nu e s g oe s to pay Crist o V ive ’s e xpe ns e s— inc lud ingGa rc ia ’s a pp ro xima te ly $50,000 annual salary and the $85,000 salary of C risto Vive founder, J org e S anche z. Gar cia’ s salary was not depende nt on the amount of leg al fe es collec ted by Cristo Vive. We ag ree with the Commi ssion that these undisputed fa cts establish a violation of rule 5.04(a)

. See Tex. Com m. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 498, 10 5 8 T e x. B

. J. 3 8 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t, w h e n a la w y e r is e mp lo y e d b y a c o r p o r a ti o n n o t o w n e d s o le ly by lic e ns e d atto rn e y s, “ the arr ang e me nt w ou ld a mou nt t o a n a g re e me nt b y

the lawy e r to sha

re le g a l f e e s w ithS i m i larly , we r ejec t Garc ia’s conte ntion that his decisions fell within a zone of 11 pr of e ssi on a l di sc re tio n c on te mpl a te d b y the se co mm ents f

or wh ic h h e sh ou ld n ot b e su bje c t to discipline. Tex. Discipli nary R. Prof’l Conduct preamble ¶ 10.

12 a non-la wy er ( the corporation) in violation of Rule 5.04(a )” if the corpor ation wer e to re ceive pay ment for the lawy er’ s service s).

Ga rc ia argue s th a t be c a

us e Cr ist o V ive ha s o pe rate d at a los s, the re we re no “ fe e s” c a pa ble of b ei n g “shar ed” in violation of rule 5.04(a) . This argument confuse s fee s with profits. The ac t that Cristo Vive has not netted a pr ofit from the lega l service s it provides does not neg ate the f act that it was paid for le g al s ervic es t hat Gar cia pr ovided. Rule 5.04(a) plainly prohibits a lawy er f

rom sharinghis or he r l e g a l f

e e s w itha no n- lawy e r, wi tho ut r e g ard to whe the r t

he lawy e r a

nd no n- lawy e r e arn

a pr of it. Gar cia also emphasizes that comments 4 and 5 to rule 5.04 contemplate situations in which it is permissibl e for a lawy er to be employ ed by a non-la wy er or g anization to provide leg al servic es to the org anization’s clients, and that comment 6 ex pressly permits a lawy er to a cce pt employ ment with various ty pes of leg al-a id office s. See Te x. Di sc ipl ina ry R. Pr of ’l Con du c t 5. 04 c mts . 4 -6 . T he se c omments , howeve r, mere ly

emphasize that a lawy er in these situations must not allow the non-la wy er or g anization to d ir e c t o r in f

lu e n c e h is o r h e r p r o f

e s s io n a l ju d g me n t in s e r ving the client. Id . N oth ingin t he se comments implies that such arrang ements are categ orica lly permitted wit hout reg ard to the limitations of oth e r r ule s. 11 Acc ording ly , we conclude that the district court did not err in gr anting summary

judgme nt that Gar cia violated r

ule 5.04(a ) by

sharingleg al fe es with a non-la wy er.13

Ru l e 7 . 0 1 (a ): Pra ct i ci n g u n d er a tr a d e n a me

Rule 7.01(a) provides, in par t, that “[a] lawy er in private pra ctice sha ll not practice under

a t ra d e name .” Te x . Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 7.01(a) , re pr inte d in T e x. G o v ’ t Co d e A n n . , tit. 2, subtit. G app. A (West 2 0 0 5 ) (T ex . S t at e Bar R. a rt. X, § 9). Rule 7.01 is broa dly aimed at pr eventing la wy e r s f r o m u s i n g t h e n a m e s o f o t h e r l aw y e r s o r e n t i t i e s s o a s t o m i s l e a d t h e p u b l i c r e g ar d i ng the ir identity . Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 7.01 cmt. 1. I n t h i s reg ard, “ Trade names a re c onsidered inhere ntly misleading .” Id. Th e Com mis si on pres ent ed u nd is pu ted su mm ary -j ud gment evi den ce i nd ica tin g tha t G a rc ia provided leg al servic es t o third parties under t he name of C risto Vive. This evidence included letter s from Gar cia to I

NS reg arding , in his words, “c lients” he “ repr esent[ed]” in I NS proce eding s, on “Cristo Vive for Immigra

nts, C.S .S., I nc.” le tterhea d indicating Cristo Vive’s ad d re s s , and si g ned “Ra ul Garc ia, Attorney at L aw.” Simi larly , Gar cia’ s business car ds wer e ti tled “Cristo Vive for I mmigra nt: Christ ian Soc ia l Se rv ic e s, I nc .” ; in dic a te d th e e nti ty ’s a dd re ss , ph on e numbe r, and an e ma il a dd

re ss “cr istovive@ix .netcom.com” ; and identified him as “Ra ul Garc ia, ESQ., Attorney at L aw/Abog ado.” The evidenc e also indicated that Cristo Vive’s sig nag e at its offic es, while indicating the p re s en ce o f an “Attorne y at L aw,” ref

err ed only

to Cristo Vive and not Garc ia. Gar cia a sserts that rule 7.01( a) doe s not apply to him because he is not “in private pr actice ,” b u ti s “ ane mp l o y e e o f

a l e g a l a i d p r o v i d e r ” o r

ani n - h o u s e “ c o r

p o r a t e e mp l o y e e ” o f

a n o n - p r o f i t
. In

su pp or t of thi s ar g ume nt, Ga

rc ia po int s to the su

pr e me c ourt ’s a tto rn e y -o c c up anc y -t a x exem pti on fo rm , wh ich id ent if

ies an ex emp t ca tegory

of “e mp lo y ee of

a 50 1(c) (3) or 5 01 (c)(6 ) no n-p rofit c or po ra tio n w ho se employe e s a

re pr ohibited from private prac tice,” a nd the state ba

r’s membe rship form, which disting uishes betwee n a lawyer in “ Private L aw Pra ctice” and “I n-House/Corpor ate Counsel.”14 To construe rule 7.01(a ), howeve r, we seek the supreme court’s intent as ref lected in the text of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Responsibility . The Commission poi nts out that the term “private practice” as used in the rules dist inguishe s betwee n g overnme ntal employ ment, in which a lawy er repr esents the public inter est, and a ll other ty pes of e mplo y

m en t , in which the lawy er r epre sents the interests of a private party
. See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 1.10, re pr inte d in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subti t. G app. A ( West 2005) ( Tex. State Ba r R. a rt. X, § 9). We a g ree with the Commi ssion that, f ro m c on te xt, “ pr ivate pr a c tic e ” in ru le 7. 01 (a ) wa s in te nd e d to re fe r t o la wy e rs re pr e se nti ngpr ivate thi rd -p art y c lie nts . In li g ht o f o ur

dis po sit ion

of Ga rc ia ’s oth e r i ssu e s, we a g re e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did not err in g rantingsummary judgme nt that he violated rule 7.01(a) by using the trade name of

Cristo Vive in h is r e pr e se ntatio n o f p ri va te c lie nts
. CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

____________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 29, 2007