Source: http://www.bettyblackwell.com/austin-criminal-law-board-certified.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:23:49+00:00

Document:
On the average for the last ten years the State Bar of Texas has received approximately 8700 complaints about lawyer misconduct. Over 2/3 are dismissed because the complaint does not describe or allege a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Approximately 3200 are sustained complaints which proceed as a grievance against the attorney. The following is a discussion of the most common complaints that result in a sanction by the State Bar of Texas and how to avoid them.
Neglect is the number one complaint filed against attorneys and the number one reason attorneys are sanction by the State bar.
A Lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him or frequently fail to carry out completely the obligations that the lawyer owes.
Santos v, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 140 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App. Hous 2004). The lawyer was sanction for the conscious disregard of a legal matter. He had been paid for an immigration matter and though told of the court date, the lawyer failed to appear. A lawyer who acts in good faith is not subject to discipline, under this provision for isolated inadvertent or unskilled act or omission, tactical error, or error of judgment.
Malpractice is not always a violation of the Rule of Ethics and ineffective assistant is not necessarily a violation of the Rule of Ethics. The duty to investigate, is part of the effectiveness standard. A lawyer must make a reasonable effort to investigate the case or after discussions with the client, make a reasonable determination that investigation is not necessary. Strickland v. Washington, 462 U.S. 1105 (1984). Wiggins v. Smith 539 U.S. 510, 123 Sct. 527 (2003). Failure to investigate a case may not rise to the level of neglecting a case in violation of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Malpractice can occur when a lawyer gives bad legal advice. However, that does not meet the definition of neglect to cause the lawyer to be sanctioned by the State Bar.
Complaints with the state bar may be filed by anyone. This complaint does not have to be filed by the client. There does not have to be an attorney client relationship for the person to file a complaint with the State Bar. Hines v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 2003 WL 21710589 (Tex. App. Hous 14th ) The Father of the client filed the complaint and the respondent attorney's theory was that there could be no sanction because he represented the son. The Court made it clear that anyone can bring to the attention of the bar a rule violation. In addition, any alleged misconduct does not have to be in the course of an attorney client relationship for the State Bar to prosecute a violation under Rule 804(a)(3) which states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Walter v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 2005 WL 1039970 (Tex. App. Dallas). For example, a lawyer can be disciplined for actions taken as the executor of an estate, even though the lawyer may have no attorney-client relationship with the beneficiaries of the will.
Rule 803 (a) requires a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed professional misconduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, to inform the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's office (CDC). The only exception is for mental illness or chemical impairment in which the lawyer can report the conduct to the Lawyer Assistant Program or the information is protected by confidentiality under Rule 1.05 or is obtain through counseling programs. Rule 1.05 is Confidential information includes both privileged information and unprivileged client information which a lawyer shall not reveal except if provided by the rules.
Texas Lawyers Assistance Program's director is Ann Foster and her number is 1-800-204-2222 ext. 1460 or email is afoster@texasbar.com. Conversations are confidential and referrals are available for help with mental illness, substance abuse or impairment by physical illness. The goal is to rehabilitate lawyers and help them resume practicing law.
Second most common complaint is the failure to communicate.
A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 1.03 (b) states that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision.
In reference to a criminal case the Rules require a lawyer shall promptly inform the client of the substance of any proffered plea bargain. Failure to do so has been held to be ineffective assistance of counsel. Ex Parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The lawyer is allowed to withhold information if believes the clients would react imprudently or if the client is under a disability.
Failure to communicate is alleged in close to half of all grievances filed. The duty is an affirmative obligation and it not dependent on a client's request for information. It must only be reasonable and failing to advise a client of an adverse development in a case would be a violation. A lawyer must respond to reasonable requests for information.
(4) promptly comply with reasonable request for information.
Fee disputes constitute a large number of complaints. Those complaints are first referred to the client-attorney assistant program (CAAP) and to the local fee dispute committees of local bar associations. CAAP's stated purpose is to try and work out a settlement so that the case does not proceed to a grievance. Their number is 1-800-204-2222 ext. 1777. If a reasonable settlement can not be obtained, the case is referred by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's office to be filed as a grievance. Returning a phone call from CAAP at 1-800-204-2222 ext. 1777 could save a trip to the grievance committee.
A lawyer shall not charge or collect an illegal or unconscionable fee. A fee is unconscionable if a competent lawyer could not form a reasonable belief that the fee is reasonable.
8. whether fee is fixed or contingent.
A lawyer may not charge a contingent fee in a criminal case. Rule 1.04 (e).
When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or the rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. The Rule strongly recommends that a lawyer get a contract and use a contract.
Many lawyers put in their contracts that the fee is a non-refundable retainer fee. The thought is that this would prevent the client for asking for a refund and prevent the client from being able to pursue a grievance if no refund was made.
Cluck v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 214 S.W.3d 736 (Tex.App.
App. Austin 2007) made it clear that simply calling a fee non-refundable does not make it so.
by the State Bar was appropriate.
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. A fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a reasonable lawyer would be left with a firm belief or conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee.
A lawyer shall hold funds and other property belonging in whole or in part to clients or third persons that are in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property. Such funds shall be kept in a separate account, designated as a trust or escrow account. Complete records of such account funds shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the representation.
(c)A lawyer shall deposit unearned fees and advanced expenses into a client trust account, to be withdraw by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.
The proposed rule would add that notification to the client and delivery of the funds would be with reasonable promptness.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a clients interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payments of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation.
The Texas Rule is that the file belongs to the client. Upon request and/or termination, the file must be returned to the client. If the lawyer wishes to make a copy and retain one for himself, he is responsible for making the copy. This section also results in a lot of sustained grievances against lawyers who mistakenly believe that they can hold the file hostage for payment of attorney's fees. In order to prove an ethical violation, there must be evidence that the retained file prejudiced the client in the subject matter of the representation. Weiss v. CFLD. 981 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1998).
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, including giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payments of feeor expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation.
(5) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
A lawyer must refuse to offer evidence that he knows to be false. If it comes from the client, the lawyer is justified in seeking to withdraw from the case. If the lawyer does not withdraw or is not allowed to withdraw, he must advise the client that he can not offer the false evidence and he must advise the client of the steps the lawyer will take if the false evidence is offered. If the lawyer discovers the false evidence after its use, the lawyer must seek to persuade the client to correct the false testimony and if that is ineffective, the lawyer is allowed to reveal confidential information under Rule 1.05 (f) which states a lawyer shall reveal confidential information when required to do so by Rule 3.03 (a)(2), 3.03(b) or by Rule 4.01(b).
Dealing with the possibility of perjury by a criminal defendant is complicated by a number of legal issues. The defendant has a due process right guaranteed in the 5 th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to present his defense and he has the absolute right to testify, if he chooses. The rules recognize that these rights are attached to the criminal defendant in Rule 1.02(a) (3) which states in a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by a client decision as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify. If the lawyer learns of the proposed perjury prior to trial, and he is unable to dissuade the client from doing so, the lawyer must withdraw from the representation. Rule 1.15.
However, Rule 1.15(c)overrides the ability to withdraw in many criminal cases. It states when ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
Three possible resolutions have been recognized in the United States. The first would allow the defendant to testify by narrative without any guidance from the lawyer. The second proposal would excuse the lawyer completely from any duty to reveal perjury if the perjury is that of the client. Texas has specifically rejected this option.
The rules in Texas require that the lawyer take reasonable remedial measures which can include disclosing the perjury. A defendant has the right to assistance of counsel, the right to testify and the right of confidential communication. However, the client does not have the right to assistance of counsel in committing perjury. The lawyer is to try and dissuade the client from committing perjury or if it has already occurred, the lawyer must try to get the client to correct the false testimony. This needs to be done in the present of another attorney to documents the lawyer's efforts.
Then the lawyer must file a motion to withdraw under Rule 1.15 (a) (1) alleging the representation will result in the violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law. In the motion, the lawyer should state Rule 1.15(b) (2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes may be criminal or fraudulent; 1.15(b)(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud or 1.15(b)(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists, including vague ethical considerations.
If the motion to withdraw is denied, the lawyer is permitted to reveal the perjury. 3.03(b) if the efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer shall take the steps to remedy including disclosing the true facts. This should be done to the tribunal and then the lawyer must abide by the decision of the court. Helton v. State, 670 S.W2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) ruled that the lawyer was excused from the rules of confidentiality and he could reveal potential perjury to the court in order to prevent a fraud on the court.
Nix v. Whiteside, 106 S.Ct. 988 (1986) involved a murder defendant who complained that his lawyer threatened to withdraw and inform the court, if he took the stand and committed perjury. On appeal he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and a denial of his 6 th amendment right to counsel. The Supreme Court held that the attorney had acted properly in threatening both to withdraw and to disclose the perjury, as the right to testify does not include the right to testify falsely and the right to counsel does not include the assistance of counseling committing perjury. The Court specifically found that there was no breach of the lawyer's professional responsibility.
Perjury is such an obvious and flagrant affront to the judicial proceedings, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in Butterfield v. State, 992 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) that a defendant could be compelled to testify, violating his 5 th Amendment rights, and then prosecuted for perjury if he lied. His statements made in violation of his 5 th Amendment rights could be admitted at his perjury trial.
(d) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicatory proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding, shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure of the falsehood to the tribunal.
(e) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts that are known to the lawyer, whether or not the facts are adverse, and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision.
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence....or counsel or assist another to do any such act.
be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
Rule 3.04(c)(5) states that in representing a client before a tribunal the lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt the proceedings.
(5) to abstain from, discontinue, or delay the prosecution of another.
(4) mailing a copy of the subpoena by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the witness.
It is both unethical and under the above circumstances illegal for an attorney to advise a subpoenaed witness not to appear in court. Rule 8.04(a) A lawyer shall not (4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice.
The comments to the Rules of Disciplinary Procedures discuss that fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against improperly influencing witnesses.
Another area of frequent complaints to the State Bar, is that a lawyer is practicing law while administrative suspended. Rule 5.05 a lawyer shall not: (a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or (b) assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
(11) engage in the practice of law when the lawyer is on inactive statute or when the lawyers right to practice has been suspended, or terminated, including but not limited to situations where a lawyers right to practice has been administratively suspended for failure to timely pay required fees or assessments or for failure to comply with Article XII of the State Bar Rules relating to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. Failure to pay the occupation tax can cause a lawyer to be sanctioned if he continues to practice.
A lawyer can be convicted of the crime of falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer under §38.122 of the Penal Code when his law license has been administratively suspended and he continues to practice. Satterwhite v. State, 979 S.W.2d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The offense is a third degree felony and final conviction is a serious crime for all purposes under the State Bar Rules. Rule 8.04(a)(2) A lawyer shall not commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflect adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Serious crime is defined as barratry; any felony involving moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing crimes. Possession of cocaine, is not a serious crime for which a lawyer can receive a compulsory discipline based upon the sentence alone of probation, deferred adjudication, or a final conviction. In re Lock, 54 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. S.Ct. 2001).
During compulsory discipline proceedings, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals decides if a lawyer has been convicted or placed on deferred adjudication for an intentional crime, which is defined as a serious crime in 8.04(b). The Board shall disbar the lawyer unless the Board suspends the license during the term of probation. Rule 8.05 and 8.06 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
The Court cannot disqualify the elected District Attorney on the basis of a violation of the disciplinary rules so mandamus was not available. State ex rel. Young v. 6 th Dist. Court of Appeals , 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
New procedures for advising defendants about their right to counsel, right to court appointed counsel and for obtaining a waiver of the right to counsel go into effect September 1, 2007 as Article 1.051 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended. If an indigent defendant who has refused appointed counsel in order to retain private counsel appears without counsel after having been given an opportunity to retain counsel, the court, after giving the defendant a reasonable opportunity to request appointment of counsel, or, if the defendant elects not to request appointment of counsel, after obtaining a waiver of the right to counsel, following the procedures set out below may proceed with the matter with 10 days notice to the defendant of a dispositive setting.
(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.
This rule adopts the standard set out in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991) which reversed a sanction against a lawyer for stating that his client was innocent when he was arrested. The Supreme Court held that the attorney must make a statement that would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the trial otherwise the rule prohibiting trial publicity violates the First Amendment. The State can not use its power to regulate lawyers to violate the attorney's right to free association and freedom of expression. NAACP v. Button, 83 S.Ct. 328 (1963).
The proposed New Rule 3.07 has re-written this section completely. (a)In the course of representing a client,a A lawyer who is participating or who has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement the lawyerknows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding.
reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this subparagraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent averse publicity.
(c)No lawyer affiliated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to (a) shall make a statement prohibited by (a).
(a)A lawyer shall not condition the representation of a client or prospective client, or the quality of such representation, on having any person engage in sexual relations with the lawyer.
( b) A lawyer shall not solicit or accept sexual relations as payment of fees.
(c) A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client that the lawyer is personally representing unless the lawyer and client are married to each other, or are engaged in an ongoing consensual sexual relationship that began before the representation.
(f) Within thirty (30) days of a finding of guilt or an order deferring adjudication by any court for the commission of an Intentional or Serious Crime, as defined by the TRDP, a lawyer licensed in Teas shall report, in writing, to the Office of the CDC, the finding of guilt, including any verdict of guilty, plea of guilty or no contest, or deferred adjudication for an Intentional or Serious Crime. The appeal fo the finding of guilty or order of deferred adjudication does not stay the duty to report.
Caperton v. Massey Coal Co, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009) held that recusal of an elected judge was required by due process when the litigant had made significant and disproportionate contributions to the judge's campaign. The CEO had contributed $3 million dollars to help elect a new chief justice following the entry of a $50 million dollar judgment against the corporation, at a time when the corporation would likely be seeking review from the West Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy wrote that due process requires the recusal even though there was no actual bias shown. The bias was objective due to the amount of the contribution. In addition Justice Kennedy quoted from the Judicial Canons of Ethics which require a judge to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
6. when the case was pending or imminent.
Ethics Opinion No. 387 by the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas applied Rule 3.05's prohibition against ex parte communications to pre-filing discussions with decision-makers. This includes discussions a lawyer might have with agency staff in a position to decide a case. This rule applies to private attorneys representing a client in a contested case before an administrative agency and to the agency's lawyers who are advocating for the state's position. This opinion conflicts with the Texas Supreme Court's decision in 1981 inVandygriff v. First Saving and Loan, which held that pre-filing ex parte communication did not violate the rules because there was no contested case pending at the time of the meeting. However, Vandygriff was based on the Administrative Procedure Act, not the rules of ethics. The opinion does state that a lawyer can communicate with an agency's technical staff and others for advice on how to present and document the case.
(2) reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the lawyers or law firm's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyers or law firm's own interest.
Comment 2 to Rule 1.06 gives guidance as to the meaning of conflict of interest. The term opposing parties as used in this Rule contemplates a situation where a judgment favorable to one of the parties will directly impact unfavorably upon the other party. Moreover, as a general proposition loyalty to a client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to the representation of that client in a substantially related matter unless the client's fully informed consent is obtained and unless the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer's representation will be reasonably protective of that client's interest.
Comment 3 recommends that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent multiple defendants in a criminal case due to the grave potential for conflict of interest. Comment 8 on fully informed consent recommends that the disclosure of the conflict of interest and the consent be in writing, though it is not required. It would be prudent, the rules states, for the lawyer to provide potential dual clients with at least a written summary of the considerations disclosed.
Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct do not affect the admissibility of evidence or cause a criminal case to be reversed. Keen v. State, 85 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App. Tyler 2002). The defendant must show that the conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of the representation to prove a 6 th Amendment violation. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980).
The new proposed conflict of interest rules have generated so much comment that the Supreme Court has tasked the State Bar with re-writing the proposed rule. As of April 2010 the current rule would require the disclosures set out in Rule 1.07 to be in writing to the clients and the informed consent of the clients must obtained in writing.
(8) fail to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsels office or a district grievance committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of disciplinary Procedure, unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so.
A lawyer, in a disciplinary matter, shall not fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.
Failure to timely respond to the State Bar grievance process can result in disbarment without any other allegations of misconduct alleged or proven. Rangel v. State Bar of Texas, 898 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. App. S.A. 1995) The grievance committee has broad discretion to reprimand, suspend or disbar an attorney for failing to respond.
When an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas has been convicted of an Intentional Crime or has been placed on probation for an Intentional Crime with or without an adjudication of guilt, the CDC shall initiate a disciplinary action seeking compulsory discipline pursuant to this part. Proceedings are not exclusive in that an attorney may be disciplined as a result of the underlying facts as well as being disciplined upon the conviction or probation through deferred adjudication.
Intentional crime means (1) any serious crime that requires proof of knowledge or intent as an essential element or (2) any crime involving misapplication of money or other property held as a fiduciary.
Serious Crime means barratry; any felony involving moral turpitude, any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing crimes. In re Locke, 54 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2001) held that a conviction for possession of a controlled substance is not a serious crime and therefore the attorney is not subject to compulsory discipline.
When an attorney has been convicted of an Intentional Crime, and that conviction has become final, or the attorney has accepted probation with or without an adjudication of guilt for an Intentional crime, the attorney shall be disbarred unless the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, suspends his or her license to practice law.
If an attorney's sentence upon conviction of a serious crime is fully probated, or if an attorney receives probation through deferred adjudication in connection with a serious crime, the attorney's license to practice law shall be suspended during the term of probation. If the probation is revoked, the attorney shall be disbarred.
(a) A person who in good faith discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.
(b) A lawyer shall not use or disclose confidential information provided by the prospective client, except as provided in rule 1.05 or (d)(2).
(c) A lawyer who has received confidential information from a prospective client shall not represent a person with interest materially adverse to those of the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter, except as provided in (d)(1) or (d)(2). When a lawyer is personally prohibited by this paragraph from representing a person in a matter, no lawyer who is affiliated with the personally prohibited lawyer, and who knows or reasonably should know of the prohibition, shall represent that person in that matter.
(2) the lawyer conditioned the discussion with the prospective client on the prospective client's informed consent that no information disclosed during the discussion would be confidential or prohibit the lawyer form representing a different client in the matter.
HB 148 was signed into law effective September 1, 2009. It amends 38.12(d) of the Texas Penal Code, the barratry statute.
(G) contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or unfair statement or claim.
SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 3. This Act took effect September 1, 2009.
This section was amended to make it clear that in person and telephone solicitation of a potential client who has not sought the lawyer's advice is barratry.
Bailey v. Morales, 190 F.3d 320 (5 th Cir. Tex. 1999) held that this statute was unconstitutional as applied to chiropractors soliciting for themselves. Chiropractor can be charged with barratry for soliciting employment for an attorney per State v. Jiminez, 148 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App. El Paso, 2004). The Federal District Court for Southern District of Texas held the provision of Texas Penal Code §38.12(d)(2)(A), (B),(C), (D) and 38.12 (e) unconstitutional, and enjoined enforcement. Moore , et al. v. Morales, 843 F. Supp. 1124 (S.D. Tex. 1994). On appeal the 30 day ban on contacting accident victims was held not to violate the 1 st amendment right to commercial free speech and the Court ordered the ban to be effective as to attorneys. Moore , v. Morales, 63 F. 3d 358 C.A.5 (Tex 1995).
Bailey v. Morales, 190 F.3d 320 (5 th Cir. Tex. 1999) held that this statute was unconstitutional as applied to chiropractors soliciting for themselves. Chiropractor can be charged with barratry for soliciting employment for an attorney per State v. Jiminez, 148 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App. El Paso, 2004). The Federal District Court for Southern District of Texas held the provision of Texas Penal Code §38.12(d)(2)(A), (B),(C), (D) and 38.12 (e) unconstitutional, and enjoined enforcement. Moore , et al. v. Morales, 843 F. Supp. 1124 (S.D. Tex. 1994). On appeal the 30 day ban on contacting accident victims was held not to violate the 1 st amendment right to commercial free speech and the Court ordered the ban to be effective as to attorneys. Moore , v. Morales, 63 F. 3d 358 C.A.5 (Tex 1995). State law prohibiting lawyer from using direct mail to solicit personal injury or wrongful death clients within 30 days of accident is not unconstitutional. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 2371 (1995). On March 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District of Texas signed a final judgment in McKinley, et al. v. Greg Abbott, declaring Section 38.12 (d)(2)(A) and 38.12 (d)(2)(C) of the Texas Penal Code unconstitutional. The judge entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing those sections.
The Supreme Court of Texas has the power to regulate the practice of law as set out in the Texas Constitution. The statutory authority to regulate the practice of law is established in the State Bar Act which directs the state bar to establish disciplinary and disability procedures. The Supreme Court has adopted the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC) which are the substantive ethics rules. The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (TRDP) sets out the procedural grievance process. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CFLD) is a permanent committee of the State Bar comprised of 12 members, 6 attorneys and 6 public members. The CFLD is the client for all complaints not dismissed by a summary disposition panel. The Commission reviews the structure, function and effectiveness of the discipline system and reports to the Supreme Court and the Board of Directors.
CFLD monitors and evaluates the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC). The CDC administers the attorney disciplinary system. The CDC reviews and screens all information relating to misconduct. It rejects all inquiries and investigates all complaints to determine just cause. CDC recommends dismissal of complaints to the Summary Disposition Panels. CDC is accountable only to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
The District Grievance Committees are divided into state geographic disciplinary districts. They act through panels of 2/3 attorneys and 1/3 public members. The local grievance committees conduct summary disposition dockets and evidentiary hearings.
If the grievance is determined to be a Complaint, the Respondent (attorney) shall be provided a copy of the complaint with notice to respond in writing to the allegations. The Respondent shall deliver the response to both the CDC and the Complainant within thirty days of the receipt of the notice.
No more than sixty days after the date by which the Respondent must file a written response to the Complaint, the chief Disciplinary Counsel shall investigate the complaint and determine whether there is Just Cause. Rule 2.12 TRDP. A Just Cause finding is made if a reasonably intelligent and prudent person would believe that an attorney has committed one or more acts of professional misconduct requiring that a sanction be imposed. If the CDC determines that Just Cause does not exist, they shall place the complaint on a Summary Disposition Panel docket. This is presented to the local grievance committee without the appearance of the Respondent (attorney) or the Complainant. There is no appeal from the Panel's determination that the complaint should be dismissed. If they fail to dismiss the complaint, it shall be placed on a hearing docket.
Once the CDC determines Just Cause exists, they shall give the Respondent written notice of the acts and/or omissions engaged in by the Respondent and the Rule of Professional Conduct that the CDC contends has been violated.
A Respondent who has been give notice of the allegations and Rule violations complained of must serve the CDC with his Election of District Court or an Evidentiary Panel of the Grievance Committee. The Election must be in writing and it must be served upon the CDC no later than twenty days after the receipt of the notice of the allegations. Failure to timely elect shall conclusively be deemed as an election to proceed before the evidentiary panel of the local grievance committee.
If the Respondent elects or defaults by failing to timely elect, the hearing will be held in front of the local grievance committee. A Private Reprimand is only available at this proceeding and is not available if the Respondent elects a district court proceeding. The CDC must file a petition within 60 days of the election deadline. All proceedings are confidential, and the burden of proof is on the CFLD by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent must be served with the petition by certified mail or other means permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent must file an answer to this petition.
The committee can dismiss and refer the matter to CAAP (Client Attorney Assistance Program). The grievance committee can find that the Respondent suffers from a disability and refer the case to BODA (Board of Disciplinary Appeals) or they can find professional misconduct and impose sanctions. There is a separate hearing on sanctions. Sanctions can include private reprimands, public reprimands, probation, suspension or disbarment. CFLD or Respondent has the right to appeal the decision to BODA, but the complainant does not. Judgment of disbarment cannot be stayed.
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply and the CDC files a petition on behalf of the CFLD with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court appoints a judge who does not reside in Respondent's administrative district. The Respondent may request a jury trial, and like the Evidentiary Proceeding the Respondent once served with the petition must file an answer. If misconduct is found, the judge determines the appropriate sanction. A Private Reprimand is not available and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgments. A final judgment of the district court is appealed as in any other civil case. A judgment of disbarment or order revoking probation can not be stayed.
To participate in the program, the lawyer must meet certain eligibility criteria and agree to meet with the program administrator for an assessment of the issues that need to be addressed. The lawyer must agree in writing to complete specific terms and conditions, including restitution if appropriate, by a date certain and to pay for any costs associated with those terms and conditions. If the lawyer agrees to participate and completes the terms in a timely manner, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel will recommend to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline that the underlying grievance be dismissed. If the lawyer does not fully complete the terms of the agreement in a timely manner, the underlying grievance will move forward through the usual disciplinary process.
Respondent Attorney has not been disciplined within the prior 3 years.
Respondent Attorney has not been disciplined for similar conduct within the prior 5 years.
Misconduct does not involve misappropriation of funds or breach of fiduciary duties.
Misconduct does not involve dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation.
Misconduct did not result in substantial harm or prejudice to client or complainant.
Respondent Attorney maintained cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.
Participation is likely to benefit respondent attorney and further the goal of protection of the public.
Misconduct does not constitute a crime which would subject respondent attorney to Compulsory Discipline under Part VIII of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.