Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-UPLC-v-American-Home-Tex-2008-Dissent-by-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:57:30+00:00

Document:
Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Green, dissenting.
circumstances it is not. I disagree.
I agree that corporate insurance companies are not permitted to practice law in Texas. ___ S.W.3d ___; see Tex.
purposes is to engage in an activity that requires a license and such a license cannot be granted to a corporation).
Court notes, the legislative record does not indicate that it was. See ___ S.W.3d ___.
statutory definition of practicing law.
question of whether the corporation was practicing law “within the meaning of the Statutes of this State?” Id. at 949.
persons who are members of the bar regularly admitted and licensed to practice law.
direct or indirect, gives an opinion as to the validity of the title to real or personal property, * * * is practicing law.
foregoing acts; * * *.
corporation, and even though the corporation acts through an attorney, it is nevertheless practicing law.
Id. at 953-54 (emphasis added).
was that a corporation could, itself, defend its insureds in court.
from practicing law in this State.’” Id. at 695 (quoting Act of April 6, 1939, 46th Leg., R.S., ch. 1, §§ 2, 3, 1939 Tex.
593 (former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. 320a-1)).
as to what kind of instrument to prepare and as to the phrasing of the instrument.
members of the State Bar are hereby prohibited from practicing law in this State.’” Id.
facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined.
leads to absurd results. Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex. 2004).
Hexter, 179 S.W.2d at 954.
54 (“The attorney in preparing such papers does so as the agent of the corporation by whom he is employed. . . .
actions they took on behalf of the corporation so that their defense is in actuality a defense of the corporation.
representing itself when it represents its insureds.
and is practicing law. See Touchy, 432 S.W.2d at 694-95; Hexter, 179 S.W.2d at 953-54.
Interpreting the State Bar Act to preclude staff attorneys from defending insureds does not yield an absurd result.
its employees, but the board ultimately remains responsible for corporate actions.
subject to professional discipline. See Touchy, 432 S.W.2d at 694.
minimize defense costs and economically benefit its non-attorney management and shareholders. Id.
In sum, the Act does not preclude insurers from representing their own interests in lawsuits if they choose to do so.
of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
1949, 51st Leg., R.S., ch. 301, § 1, 1949 Tex. Gen. Laws 548.
 Originally enacted as Act of May 28, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 779, 1969 Tex. Gen. Laws 2304 (effective Jan.
 The Foundation’s trustees were all licensed attorneys or judges who were members of the bar. Touchy v.
Houston Legal Found., 417 S.W.2d 625, 628 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1967) rev’d 432 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1968).
of the Foundation. Touchy, 417 S.W.2d at 628-29.
allow a “contracting attorney” to be an employee of the corporation. Id. § 961.303.
 For discussions of the Court’s inherent and implied powers, see State Bar v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex.
1994), and Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398-99 (Tex. 1979).
 Such goals are not criticized; they drive free market economies.
insureds when there is a material conflict of interest on a matter that is likely to be litigated in the underlying claim.
defense attorney and the insurer, see Employers Casualty Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.1973).

References: v. 
 § 1
 v.

 § 961
 v. 
 v. 
 v.