HOW TO COLLECT YOUR FEE WITHOUT GETTING DISBARRED. Written and Presented by:
|
|
- Laurence Wilkerson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 HOW TO COLLECT YOUR FEE WITHOUT GETTING DISBARRED Written and Presented by: JESSICA Z. BARGER Wright & Close, LLP One Riverway, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas Co-written by: MARIE JAMISON Wright & Close, LLP State Bar of Texas 39 TH ANNUAL ADVANCED CIVIL TRIAL COURSE San Antonio July 13-15, 2016 Dallas August 17-19, 2016 Houston October 26-28, 2016 CHAPTER 13
2
3 JESSICA ZAVADIL BARGER Partner Jessica has experience in both trial and appellate matters. In private practice, she assisted in or handled all phases of litigation for a wide variety of clients involved in insurance defense and coverage, products liability, premises liability, personal injury, and commercial lawsuits in state and federal court. At the court of appeals, she researched legal and factual issues, made recommendations to the judges, and assisted the judges in drafting and editing opinions regarding a wide variety of complex civil and criminal appeals, as well as original proceedings. Experience Partner, Wright & Close, LLP, Present Associate, Wright & Close, LLP, Associate, Wright Brown & Close, LLP, Staff Attorney, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Associate, Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Martin Associate, Phelps Dunbar Briefing Attorney, Fourteenth Court of Appeals Certifications Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization Memberships State Bar of Texas (Appellate Section) Houston Bar Association (Appellate Section)
4 Education J.D., South Texas College of Law 2001 Law Review, Associate Note & Comment Editor Varsity Moot Court, Brief Writer B.A., Political Science and History, Concordia College 1998, with honors Admissions State Bar of Texas State Bar of Minnesota
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SCOPE... 1 II. COLLECTING FEES FROM AN ADVANCE PAYMENT OR RETAINER... 1 A. Fees a Lawyer is Allowed to Collect and Keep from an Advance Payment or Retainer under Rules 1.14 and 1.15(d) Earned vs. Unearned Non-refundable Retainer vs. Advance Payment Claiming Disputed Fees vs. Holding Disputed Fees... 4 B. How Can You Collect Your Fees?... 4 III. ARBITRATION PROVISIONS AND DISPUTED FEES... 5 A. Types of Arbitration Clauses: Binding vs. Non-appealable... 5 B. How Far Can You Challenge an Arbitration Decision without Violating the Disciplinary Rules?... 6 IV. ADDITIONAL TIPS AND TAKEAWAYS... 6 i
6 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Bennett v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline, No CV, 2016 WL (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet. h.)... 2, 3, 5 Cluck v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline, 214 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. Austin 2007, no pet.)... 3, 4 Comm n for Lawyer Discipline v. Guajardo, No CV, 2012 WL (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.)... 2, 3 Denver City Energy Assocs., L.P. v. Golden Spread Elec. Coop., 340 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2011, no pet.)... 5 E. Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 257 (Tex.2010)... 5 Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992)... 5 Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P. v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2015)... 6 Other Authorities Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 431, 49 Tex. B.J (1986)... 3, 4 Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 580 (March 2008)... 4, 7 Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 582 (April 2008)... 5 Rules Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.15(d)... passim Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct , 5, 6 Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct passim Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct Page ii
7 HOW TO COLLECT YOUR FEE WITHOUT GETTING DISBARRED I. SCOPE There are quite a few ethical issues involved in fee collection and many applicable disciplinary rules regarding the same. This article is designed to explore the ethical considerations involved in collecting (or keeping) attorney s fees under Texas state law, particularly when a client pays a retainer or an advance payment for legal services. Hopefully this article will promote thought and reevaluation of your fee agreements, billing practices, and client relationships. II. COLLECTING FEES FROM AN ADVANCE PAYMENT OR RETAINER There are several disciplinary rules that regulate the manner in which a lawyer may collect fees. The disciplinary rules most relevant to this article and collecting fees from an advance or retainer are Disciplinary Rules 1.14 and 1.15(d). Rule 1.14, commonly referred to as the safekeeping provision, provides in relevant part: (a) A lawyer shall hold funds and other property belonging in whole or in part to clients... that are in a 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.... (b) [A] lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client... any funds or other property that the client... is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client..., shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. (c) When in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of funds or other property in which both the lawyer and other persons claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until there is an accounting and severance of their interest. Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.14, reprinted in Tex. Gov t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app A, (Tex. State Bar R. art. X 9). The safekeeping rule requires a lawyer to place fees that still belong to the client in a trust or escrow account. Those fees must remain in a trust account until earned, and if never earned, must be returned to the client upon request. But how should a lawyer handle funds when a client disputes whether a 1 retainer or part of a retainer has not been earned? May a lawyer ask for a nonrefundable retainer without performing any work on a case and still comply with Rule 1.14? Rule 1.15(d) provides in relevant part: Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client s interest, such as... refunding any advance payments of fees that has not been earned. Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.15(d). Rule 1.15(d) mandates that a lawyer refund to the client any advance payment that has not been earned upon termination of representation. But is a lawyer required to refund an advance payment if there is a dispute over what is earned? What constitutes an advance payment? Can a lawyer ask for a nonrefundable retainer (versus an advance payment) without performing any work on a case and still comply with Rule 1.15(d)? Other disciplinary rules may come into play depending on the circumstances of collecting a fee, including Rules 1.04 and See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.04(a) (listing factors considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee that an attorney is entitled to charge a client), 3.02 (a lawyer must minimize the burdens and delays of litigation). A. Fees a Lawyer is Allowed to Collect and Keep from an Advance Payment or Retainer under Rules 1.14 and 1.15(d). 1. Earned vs. Unearned A lawyer may collect and place in his operating account fees that have been earned. Typically, lawyers collect an advance payment (or what we often refer to as a retainer) and bill against the retainer. It is probably safe to assume that a fee is earned if: i) The services rendered meet the reasonableness factors listed in Disciplinary Rule 1.04, ii) The lawyer invoices the client for the reasonable services, and iii) The invoice is sent to the client. Once the fee has been earned, the lawyer may move that portion of the retainer or advance payment from his trust account to his operating account. A few appellate courts have addressed whether funds are earned that warrant discussion in this article. In Comm n for Lawyer Discipline v. Guajardo, the First Court of Appeals reviewed a disciplinary appeal brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (the Commission ). No CV, 2012 WL (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). In August 2008, Guajardo was retained by
8 Maurice Khan to assist with an immigration matter for Khan s fiancée. Id. at *1. No formal agreement was drafted, and other than invoices for fees and expenses, all agreements between the parties were oral. Id. Khan initially paid Guajardo $5,355. Id. Guajardo began filing certain forms with the Department of Justice and State Department, requesting permission for Khan s fiancée to enter the state. Id. In September 2008, Guajardo decided to file a writ of habeas corpus in federal court in the District of Columbia. Id. Guajardo s office called Khan and requested an additional $2,450 to file the writ. Khan immediately paid this amount, even before Guajardo sent the invoice for the writ services. Id. Because Guajardo was not licensed to practice in the District of Columbia, she needed to secure local counsel to appear pro hac vice. Id. However, Guajardo was not able to find local counsel and the writ was rejected. Id. After the writ was rejected, Guajardo applied the $2,450 to other costs incurred in the case. On October 24, 2008, Guajardo sent Kahn an invoice for $4,135. Id. at *2. The invoice did not list the costs and fees related to the writ but still applied the $2,450 to other services rendered, leaving a $4,135 balance. Id. Kahn paid the remaining balance. The following year, Kahn terminated Guajardo and demanded Guajardo to return $9,000 of unearned attorney s fees. Id. (emphasis added). Guajardo refused to return any fees, and Kahn filed a complaint with the State Bar. The Commission initiated disciplinary proceedings against Guajardo, and she elected to proceed in a district court. 1 A few months later, some of the forms filed by Guajardo were approved, and Kahn s fiancée was allowed entry into the United States. Id. In the disciplinary matter, the Commission argued Guajardo violated Rule 1.15(d) by not refunding money to Kahn when the federal writ was rejected and then applying the money to other fees and costs incurred relating to other filings. Id. at *3. Specifically, the Commission claimed that when the writ was rejected and Guajardo withdrew her fees and costs associated with the writ, she was required to reimburse the payments made for those fees and costs and had no authority to apply the payment to any other fees and costs incurred by Guajardo. Id. The First Court disagreed with the Commission and upheld the trial court s directed verdict in favor of Guajardo. Id. Citing Rules 1.02 and 1.15(d), the First Court held that Guajardo s work on the writ was within the scope of her original representation of Kahn and his fiancée. Because the writ and other filings fell under one representation and not separate cases or representations Guajardo could apply the funds to services she had rendered. Id. Guajardo invoiced the client for services, the services were rendered and fell within the scope of the agreed representation, and the invoice was sent to the client. Thus, the fees kept by Guajardo were earned, and she did not violate Rule 1.15(d). Id. In Bennett v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline, the Fourteenth Court considered whether a disputed fee was earned, when it was earned, and if there was a violation of Rule 1.15(d). No CV, 2016 WL (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet. h.). Bennett was retained by Gary Land and paid a $50,000 retainer. Id. at *2. Bennett billed and invoiced Land for approximately $71,000. Id. Bennett applied the $50,000 retainer and invoiced Land for the remaining $21,000. Land subsequently terminated Bennett s legal representation, disputed Bennett s invoice, and demanded a minimum $35,000 refund. Id. Bennett refused, and the parties arbitrated the dispute per their fee agreement. The arbitration panel found in favor of Land and awarded him $27,500. The arbitration award was confirmed by a trial court. Id. at *3. Bennett appealed the confirmation award and was unsuccessful on appeal, at the intermediate level and Texas Supreme Court. The $27,500 was paid to Land after the unsuccessful appeals. Land filed a complaint, and the Commission initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Bennett, claiming, among other things, that Bennett violated Rule 1.15(d) by refusing to return an unearned fee to Land. Id. at *4. The Fourteenth Court rejected the Commission s argument and found that Bennett had not violated Rule 1.15(d) because the rule requires an attorney to return an unearned fee upon the termination of representation. Id. at *5 (emphasis added). In this case, Bennett s termination occurred on August 3, Id. Because the question of whether the fee had been earned was not settled until July 2012, at the earliest, when the arbitration award was confirmed, Bennett did not fail to return an unearned fee upon his termination. He did not violate Rule 1.15(d). The takeaways from Guajardo and Bennett are that a fee is likely to be deemed earned when the services rendered are reasonable as described in Rule 1.04, the lawyer invoices the client for the services with details of the reasonable services rendered, and the invoice is sent to the client. Once the fee has been earned, the lawyer may move that portion of the retainer from his trust account to his operating account. If a client disputes whether a collected fee is earned, Rule 1.15(d) does not require the attorney to give that portion back to the client. See Bennett, 2016 WL , at *5. But the lawyer should segregate that disputed fee amount from the undisputed earned fees, which is discussed later in 1 See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.14 (a lawyer may elect to have a disciplinary complaint heard in a district 2 court of proper venue, with or without a jury, or by an Evidentiary Panel )
9 this article. If a fee dispute is arbitrated and resolved in favor of the former client, the lawyer must refund that amount to the client because there is then a legal determination that the fee is unearned. See id. 2. Non-refundable Retainer vs. Advance Payment Rule 1.15(d) requires an attorney to refund portions of an advance payment that have not been earned. But may an attorney require a new client to pay a nonrefundable retainer without performing any work on the case and keep the retainer? In Ethics Opinion 431 by the Texas Committee on Professional Ethics, that very question was presented: May an attorney ethically charge a non-refundable retainer? Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 431, 49 Tex. B.J (1986). Following other jurisdictions, the Committee concluded that: and: a retainer fee is payment to compensate an attorney for his commitment to provide certain services and forego other employment opportunities, non-refundable retainers are not inherently unethical. The Committee explained that a true retainer is not payment for services but an advance fee to secure a lawyer s services and remunerate him for loss of the opportunity to accept other employment. If the lawyer can substantiate that other employment will probably be lost by obligating himself to represent the client, then the retainer fee should be deemed earned at the moment it is received. If, however, the client discharges the attorney for cause before any opportunities have been lost, or if the attorney withdraws voluntarily, then the attorney should refund an equitable portion of the retainer. See id. In Cluck v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline, the Austin Court of Appeals followed the reasoning in Ethics Opinion 431, and held that funds paid by a client was an advance payment and therefore not earned. 214 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. Austin 2007, no pet.). Cluck was retained by Smith to represent her in a divorce. Smith agreed in writing to pay Cluck a non-refundable retainer in the amount of $15,000. Id. at 737. The written agreement also provided that: 3 lawyer fees are to be billed at $150 per hour, first against non-refundable fee and then monthly thereafter. Id. The contract further stated that no part of the legal fee is to be refunded. Id. Smith paid the $15,000 and an additional $5,000 non-refundable fee after the divorce petition was filed. Smith later terminated Cluck as her attorney because she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress made by Cluck and Cluck s lack of responsiveness. Id. at 738. Smith asked for her file, a detailed accounting, and a refund of the $20,000, less reasonable attorney s fees and expenses. Id. Cluck told Smith she was not entitled to a refund because the retainer was non-refundable. Id. Smith filed a complaint, and the Commission commenced a disciplinary proceeding against Cluck. The trial court granted the Commission s summary judgment, found that Cluck violated Disciplinary Rules 1.04(a),(c), 1.14(a),(b), and imposed a fully probated suspension. Id. On appeal to the Third Court, Cluck argued that he did not violate the rules regarding refunding unearned fees. Id. at 739. Cluck claimed the: fee paid by Smith was a nonrefundable retainer that was earned at the time it was received and he was not obligated to hold the funds in a trust account because they did not belong in whole or in part to Smith. Id. Following Ethics Opinion 431, the Austin Court held that the payment was an advance. Specifically, the contract for legal services did not state that the $15,000 payment compensated Cluck for his availability or lost opportunities. Id. at 741. Instead, it stated Cluck s hourly fee would be billed against it. Additionally: if the first $15,000 secured Cluck s availability, it follows that he should not charge another retainer to resume work on the divorce. He was already retained for the purposes of representing Smith in the matter. Id. at 740. A fee is not earned simply because it is designated as non-refundable. Id. (quoting Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 431). Ethics Opinion 611 further clarifies and confirms the conclusion in Opinion 431 and holding in Cluck. See Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 611 (September 2011). Opinion 611 involved a matter wherein a lawyer proposed to enter into an employment agreement that required the client to pay at the outset an amount denominated a nonrefundable retainer to cover all services of the lawyer on the matter up to the time of
10 trial. The proposed agreement also provided that if a trial was necessary, the client would be required to pay additional fees for services at and after trial. The lawyer proposed to deposit the client s initial payment in his operating account. Citing Cluck, the Ethics Committee defined a nonrefundable retainer as payment to secure a lawyer s services and to compensate the lawyer for the loss of opportunities for other employment. A true retainer is not payment for services; payment for future services is an advance payment. See id. The Committee reasoned that a retainer is solely to secure a lawyer s future availability, which is fully earned at the time received. However, the lawyer is required to refund the nonrefundable retainer (a) if the lawyer is discharged for cause, but before the lawyer has lost opportunities for other employment, or (b) if the lawyer withdraws voluntarily. Id. The Committee concluded that a: legal fee relating to future services is a nonrefundable retainer at the time received only if the fee in its entirety is a reasonable fee to secure the availability of a lawyer s future services and compensate the lawyer for the preclusion of other employment that results from the acceptance of employment for the client. Id. Furthermore, a nonrefundable retainer meeting this standard and agreed to by the client is earned at the time it is received and may be deposited in the lawyer s operating account. But, any payment for services that does not meet this requirement is not a retainer and must be deposited in the lawyer s trust or escrow account. Pursuant to Cluck and Ethics Opinions 431 and 611, a lawyer is not permitted to enter into an agreement with a client for a payment that is denominated a nonrefundable retainer if it is payment for future services rather than solely for the availability of future services. 3. Claiming Disputed Fees vs. Holding Disputed Fees A distinction can be, and has been made by the Texas Committee on Ethics, between disputed fees a lawyer is claiming and disputed fees a lawyer is holding. See Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 580 (March 2008). The duty to promptly deliver to a client, upon termination of the representation, any funds that the client is entitled to receive is not triggered when there is a good-faith controversy between the lawyer and client regarding whether or not the client is entitled to receive the funds or property in question. Otherwise, Rule 1.15(d) would require a lawyer to give the client any and all funds the client requested, whether rightly or wrong. Such interpretation of the rule would be patently unreasonable and unfair. Accordingly, Rule 1.15(d) arguably does not apply 4 or govern a matter involving a fee dispute or disputed fees claimed by a lawyer. Rather, Rule 1.15(d) captures cases involving disputed fees held by a lawyer. In Ethics Opinion 580, the Committee concluded that a fee dispute did not trigger the application of Rules 1.14 or 1.15(d) because the lawyer was claiming the disputed fees, not holding disputed fees. See id. Id. In a case involving disputed fees claimed by a lawyer rather than disputed fees held by a lawyer, the discussion... of Rules 1.14 and 1.15(d) would not apply (because no client property held by the lawyer would be involved). B. How Can You Collect Your Fees? Many lawyers collect fees by securing a retainer or advance payment. As discussed above, a lawyer must segregate the earned from the unearned but may collect or bill against an advance payment. When an advance payment has been exhausted, lawyers may invoice the client for reasonable services and request payment for the services. Lawyers may also collect fees by charging a client s credit card. The Ethics Committee considered an interesting fee collection arrangement in Ethics Opinion 582. See Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 582 (April 2008). In the Opinion, the Committee considered whether a lawyer may enter into a fee agreement in which the lawyer bills for his services and the client agrees that if payment is not made to the lawyer within 30 days of tender of the invoice, the lawyer may charge the client s credit card for the amount of the invoice. Because the facts of this opinion involve charging the client s credit card after the legal services have been performed, it is permissible for the funds received under the credit card payment arrangement to go into the lawyer s operating account. Id. However, a different rule applies if the client disputes the fee. It is not permissible for a credit card payment arrangement to negate the requirement that an attorney hold disputed funds separately. In ordinary circumstances, when a lawyer holds money or property of another and a dispute arises, a lawyer is required to segregate any disputed funds until the dispute is resolved. See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof l Conduct 1.14(c). If such a dispute exists, the lawyer may charge the client s credit card for the disputed amount but the lawyer may not place that amount in his operating account. The Committee concluded that the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not
11 prohibit a lawyer s charging a credit card for attorney s fees that have been earned by the lawyer provided the client consents and the client s ability to challenge a disputed statement for legal fees is preserved. See Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op III. ARBITRATION PROVISIONS AND DISPUTED FEES A. Types of Arbitration Clauses: Binding vs. Nonappealable This portion of the article explores arbitration clauses in fee agreements, and particularly examines the arbitration holdings in the Bennett case, discussed earlier in this paper. The Houston Court concluded that Bennett had violated Rule 3.02 in appealing the confirmation award because such appeal unreasonably increased the cost of the fee litigation and unreasonably delayed its resolution. Id. The arbitration provision provided that the arbitration award was binding and non-appealable. Which begs the question: Is binding arbitration ever appealable? Generally, confirmation of an arbitration award is appealable under section (a)(3) of the Texas Arbitration Act. However, because Texas law favors arbitration, appellate review of an arbitration award is extraordinarily narrow. E. Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex.2010). Courts review a trial court s confirmation of an arbitration award de novo. Denver City Energy Assocs., L.P. v. Golden Spread Elec. Coop., 340 S.W.3d 538, 544 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2011, no pet.). Arbitration is a: contractual proceeding by which the parties to a controversy or dispute, in order to obtain a speedy and inexpensive final disposition agree to submit their controversy to an arbitration process. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. 1992). However, in the Bennett case, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that Bennett was not allowed to appeal the confirmation award under section because the arbitration clause precluded that right. As discussed earlier in this article, Bennett v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline is a disciplinary appeal in which a lawyer was disbarred by a district court judge for appealing an arbitration award WL After the former client terminated Bennett and disputed the fees paid, the parties arbitrated the fee dispute. Id. at * 2. The arbitration panel found in favor of Land and awarded him $27,500. The arbitration award was confirmed by a trial court. Id. Bennett appealed the confirmation award (at the intermediate level and Texas Supreme Court) and was unsuccessful on appeal. The $27,500 was paid to Land after the unsuccessful appeals. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that the language of the contract: 5 arbitrator s decision... shall be binding, conclusive and non-appealable pursuant to the Rules of the HBA Fee Dispute Committee prohibited any appeal of the trial court s confirmation award. Id. at *7 8. The Houston Court concluded that Bennett had violated Rule 3.02 in appealing the confirmation award because such appeal unreasonably increased the cost of the fee litigation and unreasonably delayed its resolution. Id. Would the outcome in the Bennett case been different if the arbitration clause had stated arbitration was binding but did not use the word non-appealable? Maybe. The Court of Appeals definitely focused on the word non-appealable when interpreting the contract. Another issue to consider in litigating arbitration clauses with clients is whether the provisions should be construed against the lawyer? Although Bennett clearly required his client to have separate counsel review the contract before signing, and the former client did so, the Court of Appeals still seemed to construe the contract against Bennett. The court did so despite some of the teachings in Texas Supreme Court opinions. See Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P. v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2015). Lopez involved an interlocutory appeal in the Texas Supreme Court, wherein the Court reviewed the enforceability of an arbitration provision in an attorneyclient employment contract. See id. The arbitration provision provided that the client and law firm would arbitrate disputes that arose between them, except for claims made by the law firm for recovery of its fees and expenses. Id. at 500. The client sued the law firm after settling the underlying litigation; the client claimed that the firm induced him to accept an inadequate settlement. Id. The law firm moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the firm s motion. The firm filed an interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding in the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals to compel arbitration. Id. The appellate court affirmed the trial court s denial on the basis that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and unenforceable. Id. at The law firm then filed a petition for review and writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the client did not prove that either the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable or any other defense to the arbitration provision and, accordingly, reversed the appellate court s decision and remanded the case to the trial court to compel arbitration. Id. at In construing the parties fee agreement, the Supreme Court stated: [W]e decline to impose... a legal requirement that attorneys explain to prospective clients, either orally or in writing, arbitration provisions in attorney-client employment
12 agreements. Prospective clients who enter such contracts are legally protected to the same extent as other contracting parties, for example, fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the contracting process. But prospective clients who sign attorney-client employment contracts containing arbitration provisions are deemed to know and understand the contract s content and are bound by their terms on the same basis as other contracting parties. Id. at 505. Thus, a lawyer is not required to explain to prospective clients arbitration provisions in a proposed fee agreement. Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are to be construed and treated the same as other contracts, despite the existence of a prospective attorney-client relationship. See id. at 504. Pursuant to Lopez, a lawyer is not required to explain the terms of the fee agreement to a prospective client, including a binding arbitration provision. Prospective clients who sign attorney-client employment contracts containing arbitration provisions are deemed to know and understand the contract s content. Furthermore, the existence of a potential attorney-client relationship does not create a unique duty to explain to a prospective client the terms of a fee agreement or arbitration provision. Id. The takeaway? When in doubt, explain all details of a fee contract to a prospective client and avoid using the word non-appealable as it implies something more than binding. Or, if the word non-appealable is used, the contract could state that: the arbitration award is binding and nonappealable except for those limited reasons listed in section of the Texas Arbitration Act. B. How Far Can You Challenge an Arbitration Decision without Violating the Disciplinary Rules? Texas Ethics Opinion 580 addresses the issue of whether a lawyer s refusal to comply with an arbitration decision in a fee dispute with a client is a violation of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14 and 1.15(d). See Tex. Comm. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 580 (March 2008). The Committee addressed a situation where a lawyer and his client agreed in writing to submit a fee dispute to binding arbitration. Under the arbitration agreement, the arbitration decision was to be final. An arbitration was conducted by a fee dispute committee of the local bar and an arbitration award was made in favor of the client. However, the lawyer refused to abide by the arbitrator s award. The Committee determined that Rules 1.14 and 1.15(d) did not apply because the fees were disputed 6 disputed fees claimed by the lawyer, not held by the lawyer. Rather, the lawyer s refusal violated Rule 8.04(a)(3) that prohibits a lawyer from engaging in dishonest or fraudulent conduct. The Committee concluded that a: See id. lawyer s entering into an agreement to resolve a fee dispute by arbitration with the undisclosed intention of refusing to accept an unfavorable arbitration award would, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.04(a)(3). A lawyer who agrees in writing with a client or former client to submit a fee dispute to binding arbitration and then refuses to comply with the award violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct if the lawyer continues to hold property of the client or former client contrary to the arbitration award or if the lawyer in the particular case entered into the agreement to arbitrate with the intention of not complying with an award that was unfavorable to the lawyer. Id. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held in Bennett that the lawyer could not challenge the arbitration decision beyond the confirmation award. But again, the arbitration clause expressly stated that the arbitration decision was non-appealable. In drafting your arbitration clause, be clear that while arbitration is binding, but avoid using the word non-appealable. Otherwise, you might forfeit rights to appeal an order confirming an arbitration award. IV. ADDITIONAL TIPS AND TAKEAWAYS If you seek to secure a true retainer nonrefundable retainer include language in the fee agreement that explains the payment is made to secure the lawyer s services and to compensate for the lawyer s loss of opportunity for other work and employment. Promptly invoice clients for services rendered, with enough details reflecting that the fees and expenses are reasonable under Rule Place disputed fees in a trust or escrow account. Promptly refund fees if an arbitration award is rendered in favor of a former client and confirmed in the trial court, despite what the contract states.
13 At the very least, place the funds in the registry of the court immediately and before appealing. Carefully consider the language in your arbitration clauses. Perhaps omit non-appealable but emphasis binding arbitration. Be sure to segregate advance payments from earned fees and retainers. Carefully consider whether to proceed before a district court or evidentiary panel. 7
14
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00033-CV Tracy Dee Cluck, Appellant v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellee FROM THE
More informationNO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.
Opinion issued December 10, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00769-CV IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * *
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00487-CV Mary Alice SAIZ, Appellant v. SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and Stripes LLC, Appellees From the
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 18, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-17-00476-CV BRIAN A. WILLIAMS, Appellant V. DEVINAH FINN, Appellee On Appeal from the 257th District Court
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00100-CV IN RE WYATT SERVICES, L.P., RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING April 4, 2013 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Before QUINN, C.J.,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 3, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00615-CV MARK SCHWARZ, NEWCASTLE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., NEWCASTLE CAPITAL GROUP, L.L.C.,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued August 2, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-17-00198-CV TRUYEN LUONG, Appellant V. ROBERT A. MCALLISTER, JR. AND ROBERT A. MCALLISTER JR AND ASSOCIATES,
More informationAttorney Grievance Comm n v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu, Misc. Docket AG No. 58, September Term, 2016
Attorney Grievance Comm n v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu, Misc. Docket AG No. 58, September Term, 2016 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS DISBARMENT Court of Appeals disbarred lawyer who failed to order transcripts
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 12, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00204-CV IN RE MOODY NATIONAL KIRBY HOUSTON S, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, in Part, and Denied, in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00248-CV IN RE PRODIGY SERVICES,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Appeal Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00235-CV ALI CHOUDHRI, Appellant V. LATIF
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Conditionally granted and Opinion Filed April 6, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00791-CV IN RE STEVEN SPIRITAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE SPIRITAS SF
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-17-00183-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: EAST TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER AND EAST TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, RELATORS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03 0831 444444444444 YUSUF SULTAN, D/B/A U.S. CARPET AND FLOORS, PETITIONER v. SAVIO MATHEW, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00287-CV CITY OF FRITCH, APPELLANT V. KIRK COKER, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 84th District Court Hutchinson County, Texas Trial
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 5, 2014. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00193-CV VICTOR S. ELGOHARY AND PETER PRATT, Appellants V. HERRERA PARTNERS, L.P., HERRERA PARTNERS, G.A.
More informationTHE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT. BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar
THE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar Attorney at Law Board Certified Criminal Law 1306 Nueces St. Austin,
More information[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.]
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.] OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCRAY. [Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.] Attorneys
More informationOPINION. No CV. Matthew COOKE, President, and Alice Police Officers Association, on behalf of similarly situated officers, Appellants
OPINION No. Matthew COOKE, President, and Alice Police Officers Association, on behalf of similarly situated officers, Appellants v. CITY OF ALICE, Appellee From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed June 30, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00418-CV IN RE COMERICA BANK, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 190th District
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00242-CV Billy Ross Sims, Appellant v. Jennifer Smith and Celia Turner, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
NO. 07-08-0292-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA RUDNICK HUGHES AND RODNEY FANE HUGHES FROM THE 16TH
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-13-00206-CV SCHMIDT LAND SERVICES, INC., Appellant v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION and UniFirst Holdings Inc. Successor in Merger to UniFirst Holdings
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 9, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00788-CV SOUTHWEST GALVANIZING, INC. AND LEACH & MINNICK, P.C. Appellants V. EAGLE FABRICATORS, INC.,
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-17-00447-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG COUNTY OF HIDALGO, Appellant, v. MARY ALICE PALACIOS Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo
More informationPROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RESPONDING TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE: THE RESPONDENT S PERSPECTIVE
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RESPONDING TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE: THE RESPONDENT S PERSPECTIVE ROBERT E. VALDEZ Board Certified Personal Injury Trial Law Ray, Valdez, Mcchristian & Jeans, P.C. 9311 San Pedro,
More informationNo On Appeal from the Evidentiary Panel for the State Bar of Texas District SBOT Case No Opinion and Judgment on Appeal
JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT AFFIRMED Opinion and Judgment Signed and Delivered February 8, 2016. BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 56406 CHARLES J. SEBESTA,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 17, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01039-CV LEISHA ROJAS, Appellant V. ROBERT SCHARNBERG, Appellee On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria
More informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046
ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-046 7/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR.,
NUMBER 13-11-00068-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Appellants, v. BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR., Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON REHEARING NO. 03-14-00511-CV Mary Blanchard, Appellant v. Grace McNeill, in her Capacity as Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of the Dixie Lee Hudlow
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 8, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01064-CV SM ARCHITECTS, PLLC AND ROGER STEPHENS, Appellants V. AMX VETERAN SPECIALTY SERVICES,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00592-CV Mark Polansky and Landrah Polansky, Appellants v. Pezhman Berenji and John Berenjy, Appellees 1 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0630 444444444444 WESTERN STEEL COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. HANK ALTENBURG, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 26, 2009. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-08-00900-CV THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant V. LARRY EDGAR ESTRADA AND MAYER BROWN, L.L.P., F/K/A MAYER, BROWN,
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. SHERYL JOHNSON-TODD, Appellant V. JOHN S. MORGAN, Appellee NO CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT SHERYL JOHNSON-TODD, Appellant V. JOHN S. MORGAN, Appellee NO. 09-15-00210-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11078 October 29, 2015, Opinion
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-349-CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.I.L., A CHILD ------------ FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ------------
More informationLegal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership
Legal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership Joint Committee on Legal Referral Service New York City Bar Association and The New York County Lawyers Association Amended as of May 1, 2015 Table of
More informationCopr. West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
97 S.W.3d 731 Page 1 Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. MERIDIEN HOTELS, INC. and MHI Leasco Dallas, Inc., Appellants, v. LHO FINANCING PARTNERSHIP I, L.P., Appellee. In re MHI Leasco Dallas, Inc. and
More informationARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02
ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 ARBITRATION ADVISORY RE: ENFORCEMENT OF NON-REFUNDABLE RETAINER PROVISIONS May 16, 2001 Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the Committee on Mandatory
More informationIN THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS. CHRISTOPHER L. GRAHAM Appellant. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE Appellee
BODA CASE NO. 58402 SBOT CASE NO. 20150293 IN THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER L. GRAHAM Appellant v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE Appellee On appeal from Evidentiary Panel
More informationTHE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS Opinion No April 2013
THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS Opinion No. 627 April 2013 QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, what are the responsibilities of a
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN 444444444444444 NO. 03-00-00054-CV 444444444444444 Ron Adkison, Appellant v. Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Appellee 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 12-0208 444444444444 IN RE REBECCA RAMIREZ PALOMO, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00666-CV IN RE Dean DAVENPORT, Dillon Water Resources, Ltd., 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc. f/k/a Davenport Drilling & Pump Service,
More informationContractual Clauses That Impact Disputes. By David F. Johnson
Contractual Clauses That Impact Disputes By David F. Johnson Introduction In the process of drafting contracts, parties can shape the process for resolving their future disputes. They can potentially select
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 16-0890 SHAMROCK PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC, P.A., PETITIONER, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, KYLE JANEK, MD, EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER AND DOUGLAS WILSON, INSPECTOR
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-11-00015-CV LARRY SANDERS, Appellant V. DAVID WOOD, D/B/A WOOD ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0047 444444444444 ALLEN MARK DACUS, ELIZABETH C. PEREZ, AND REV. ROBERT JEFFERSON, PETITIONERS, v. ANNISE D. PARKER AND CITY OF HOUSTON, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-09-00022-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE GENE ASHLEY D/B/A ROOFTEC On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued December 16, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00669-CV HITCHCOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant V. DOREATHA WALKER, Appellee On Appeal from
More information) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationCOURT STRUCTURE OF TEXAS
COURT STRUCTURE OF TEXAS SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 Supreme Court (1 Court -- 9 Justices) -- Statewide Jurisdiction -- Final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases and juvenile cases. Court of Criminal Appeals (1
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued February 23, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00163-CV XIANGXIANG TANG, Appellant V. KLAUS WIEGAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued November 26, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00946-CV WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS AND COUNTY JUDGE GLENN BECKENDORFF, COMMISSIONER FRANK POKLUDA, COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 09-0369 444444444444 GLENN COLQUITT, PETITIONER, v. BRAZORIA COUNTY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed March 23, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-08-01018-CV LT. KENNETH MILLER, Appellant V. CITY OF HOUSTON AND HAROLD HURTT, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00169-CV Betty Lou Bradshaw From the 355th District Court v. R.J. Sikes, Roger Sikes, Kathy Sikes, Greg Louvier, Pam Louvier, Christy Rome,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 27, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00220-CV MARQUETH WILSON, Appellant V. COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
NUMBER 13-08-00082-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE: RAYMOND R. FULP, III, D.O. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez,
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00133-CV ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant v. Noelia M. GUILLEN, Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz, Appellees
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 7, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00267-CV PANDA SHERMAN POWER, LLC, Appellant V. GRAYSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 5, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00632-CV ALI YAZDCHI, Appellant V. TD AMERITRADE AND WILLIAM E. RYAN, Appellees On Appeal from the 129th
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT LINDA ACEVEDO, Austin State Bar of Texas State Bar of Texas 36 TH ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 9-12, 2010 San Antonio
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00413-CV ARI-ARMATUREN USA, LP, AND ARI MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants V. CSI INTERNATIONAL,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 25, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00909-CV DAVID LANCASTER, Appellant V. BARBARA LANCASTER, Appellee On Appeal from the 280th District Court
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00363-CV Mark Buethe, Appellant v. Rita O Brien, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-06-008044, HONORABLE ERIC
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CV. From the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 26,407 MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00102-CV THE CITY OF CALDWELL, TEXAS, v. PAUL LILLY, Appellant Appellee From the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 26,407 MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 22, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01540-CV CADILLAC BAR WEST END REAL ESTATE AND L. K. WALES, Appellants V. LANDRY S RESTAURANTS,
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00105-CV KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant v. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001710-D3
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
IN RE A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM AGAINST HAI QUANG LA AND THERESA THORN NGUYEN COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00110-CV ---------- FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT
More informationARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW
WRITTEN BY: J. Wilson Eaton ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW Employers with arbitration agreements
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-035 8/14/2015 IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed January 22, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-01105-CV ISABEL CAMPBELL, Appellant V. AMANDA DUFFY MABRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
More informationCOMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SEPTEMBER 2018 Disciplinary Sanctions 6/1/2018-8/31/2018 DISBARMENTS District # of Complaints Resolved Sustaita,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00555-CV Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Appellant v. Angela Bonser-Lain; Karin Ascott, as next friend on behalf of T.V.H. and A.V.H.,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 14, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01221-CV JOHN E. DEATON AND DEATON LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Appellants V. BARRY JOHNSON, STEVEN M.
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 4, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00358-CV IN RE HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed October 1, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00149-CV WILLIAM W. CAMP AND WILLIAM W. CAMP, P.C., Appellants V. EARL POTTS AND
More informationending November 16, BODA Cause number
Contact the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel at (512) 453-5535, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals at (512) 475-1578 or txboda.org, or the State Commission on Judicial Conduct at (512) 463-5533. BODA
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-12-00167-CV STEVEN L. DRYZER, APPELLANT V. CHARLES BUNDREN AND KAREN BUNDREN, APPELLEES On Appeal from the 393rd District Court Denton
More informationISBA Legal Ethics Committee Opinion No. 3 of 2015
ISBA Legal Ethics Committee Opinion No. 3 of 2015 Depositing flat fees into the trust account This formal opinion is disseminated in accordance with the charge of the Indiana State Bar Association s Standing
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0169 444444444444 IN RE VAISHANGI, INC., ET AL., RELATORS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00167-CV STEPHENS & JOHNSON OPERTING CO.; Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.-MOPI for Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. IN THE ESTATE OF Steven Desmer LAMBECK, Deceased From the County Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. PR-07450 Honorable Kathleen
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed August 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00750-CV FRANKLIN D. JENKINS, Appellant V. CACH, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the Civil
More informationUNEARNED RETAINER CLAIMS
UNEARNED RETAINER CLAIMS NATIONAL CLIENT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION, INC. Northeast Regional Workshop Boston, Massachusetts October 30, 1998 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security 5035
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. MANJIT KAUR-GARDNER, Appellant V. KEANE LANDSCAPING, INC.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 14, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00230-CV MANJIT KAUR-GARDNER, Appellant V. KEANE LANDSCAPING, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BUCK PORTER, Appellant V. A-1 PARTS, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 14, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01468-CV BUCK PORTER, Appellant V. A-1 PARTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00086-CV Appellant, Cristina L. Treadway// Cross-Appellants, Sheriff James R. Holder and Comal County, Texas v. Appellees, Sheriff James R. Holder
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY. NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055 AMENDED RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT This is a disciplinary proceeding based upon
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00608-CV Jeanam Harvey, Appellant v. Michael Wetzel, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 99-13033,
More informationTEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE UPDATE
TEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE UPDATE Professor Elaine Grafton Carlson South Texas College of Law 1303 San Jacinto, Suite 755 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 646 1870 ecarlson@stcl.edu Courtney Taylor Carlson Jackson
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Grant and Opinion Filed February 21, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01646-CV IN RE GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRST GROUP AMERICA, AND MARC D. HARRIS, Relator On
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00693-CV Narciso Flores and Bonnie Flores, Appellants v. Joe Kirk Fulton, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV No CV No CV
Conditionally GRANT in Part; and Opinion Filed May 30, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00507-CV No. 05-17-00508-CV No. 05-17-00509-CV IN RE WARREN KENNETH PAXTON,
More informationInterlocutory Appeal Update
Interlocutory Appeal Update Rich Phillips DBA Appellate Section October 15, 2015 1 Texas Appellate Watch Blog www.texasappellatewatch.com Twitter: @AppellateWatch 2 3 CASELAW UPDATE 4 Appeal or Mandamus?
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-10-00155-CV CARROL THOMAS, BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WOODROW REECE, Appellants V. BEAUMONT HERITAGE SOCIETY AND EDDIE
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00441-CV Christopher Gardini, Appellant v. Texas Workforce Commission and Dell Products, L.P., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,
More information