Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-05-00413-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 29, 2007

Raul Garcia v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This disciplinary action was initiated by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney Raul Garcia for alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court found Garcia in violation of rules concerning fee-splitting with a non-lawyer, assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, and practicing under a trade name, while ruling in his favor on a charge of forming a partnership with a non-lawyer. Garcia appealed the district court's partial summary judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Garcia indeed violated rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) as an employee of a non-profit organization providing legal services.

Legal EthicsAttorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingTrade NameProfessional MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

The case concerns attorney Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s challenge to disciplinary actions taken by the State Bar of Texas. He was disciplined by the Advertising Review Committee and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline for alleged violations of professional conduct rules related to lawyer advertising. Izen contended that these entities violated his fundamental constitutional right to due process by failing to adhere to their own procedures, expanding their investigation without notice, and initiating disciplinary proceedings without allowing him an opportunity to rectify perceived issues, despite accepting his fees. The dissenting justice concurred, arguing that the application of former Rule 7.07 was unconstitutional, as it deprived Izen of fair notice and a chance to cure violations. Consequently, the dissenting justice advocated for vacating the district court's judgment, which had favored the Commission, and dismissing all proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionState Bar of TexasProfessional Conduct RulesSafe HarborProcedural Due Process

References

Case No. 01-17-0002-1912

Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

This Memorandum Order addresses a motion filed by defendants Verna Eggleston, Doar, and Novello, seeking to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, paralegal assistants, interns, and former attorney Reena Ganju from testifying in the action. The defendants argued that these individuals were essential fact witnesses for the plaintiffs’ 'Monell' claim, invoking the advocate-witness rule. The Court, presided over by District Judge RAKOFF, denied the motion in its entirety. The decision clarified that the advocate-witness rule, as embodied in New York Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-102, does not apply to non-lawyers or to lawyers not currently appearing for any party in the case. The Court also noted that Ms. Ganju's testimony and other documentary evidence would render counsel's testimony cumulative and not essential for the plaintiffs' case, though it admonished plaintiffs' counsel for an 'inappropriate' confusion of roles.

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation

References

Case No. 01-07-01114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 28, 2010

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Justice Keyes dissents from the majority's decision, asserting that the State Bar of Texas and its Commission for Lawyer Discipline violated appellant Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s fundamental constitutional due process rights. Izen was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a license suspension after the Advertising Review Committee broadened its investigation into his advertising practices sua sponte, despite an initial offer for administrative resolution. The dissent argues that the Committee failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure alleged violations, contrary to its own rules and the "safe harbor" provision of former Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.07. Justice Keyes concludes that Rule 7.07, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional under both federal and Texas constitutions. Consequently, she would vacate the district court's judgment and dismiss the proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative LawTexas State BarProfessional ConductSafe Harbor

References

Case No. 03-98-00533-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an "additional tax" after its merger, claiming the tax was unconstitutional as it resulted in fiscal year taxpayers paying tax on earned surplus over a longer period than calendar year taxpayers upon ceasing business. The district court sided with Bealls. However, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the additional tax. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state purposes of revenue generation and mitigating fiscal effects of corporate reorganizations, and it did not violate equal protection, equal and uniform taxation, or the federal commerce clause. The court determined the tax applied even-handedly based on previously untaxed earned surplus and Bealls had a substantial nexus with Texas.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals

This case addresses the disqualification of an attorney and their firm from representing a client against a state agency that previously employed another attorney now working for the firm. Jesse Casias sustained an injury at the Industrial Accident Board (IAB) office, nine days before Margaret Maisel, then IAB chairman, concluded her tenure. After leaving government service, Maisel joined Tinsman & Houser, where another attorney, Bruce Miller, represented Casias in a suit against the IAB. The State sought to disqualify Miller and his firm, alleging a conflict of interest under Rules 1.09, 1.10, and 3.08 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The Supreme Court of Texas found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing disqualification, concluding that the State failed to prove Maisel's substantial personal participation or possession of actual confidential government information, and that her testimony was not a necessary witness but rather a speculative possibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus to vacate the court of appeals' judgment which had found an abuse of discretion by the trial court and ordered disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestFormer Government AttorneyTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductRule 1.10 (Former Government Employee)Lawyer-Witness Rule (Rule 3.08)Mandamus PetitionAbuse of DiscretionProfessional ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation

References

Case No. Nos. 3:00-0448; 3:01-0216; 3:02-0129; 3:02-0152

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 06, 2003

Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Kelley

These four consolidated actions involve claims under the Miller Act and ERISA, along with breach of contract cross-claims. The Court conducted a bench trial from June 3 to June 6, 2003. The Court found Mr. Cates and Cates, Inc. in contempt for violating a temporary injunction and ordered them to pay a compliance fine. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs against Cates, Inc. and Heritage for Miller Act violations and against Mr. Cates for breach of his ERISA fiduciary duties. The cross-claims between KTE and Cates, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice due to a mandatory arbitration clause.

Miller ActERISABreach of ContractContempt of CourtFiduciary DutyJoint EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySurety BondPension FundsHealth Funds

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Building Industry Fund v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This Opinion and Order addresses defendant Local 3's motion for reconsideration, which the court treated as a new motion for summary judgment, regarding Count Eight of the complaint. The central issue revolves around the application of New York's Martin v. Curran rule, which requires proof of unanimous union membership authorization or ratification for tortious acts to hold an unincorporated labor union liable. Despite plaintiffs' arguments, the court affirmed the continued vitality of the Martin rule in New York. Finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such unanimous authorization or ratification for either a letter-writing campaign or alleged violent acts, the court concluded that plaintiffs could not recover against Local 3 under state law. Consequently, Local 3's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Count Eight of the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentReconsideration MotionLabor LawTortious InterferenceUnion LiabilityUnincorporated AssociationAuthorization and RatificationNew York LawFederal PreemptionPicket Line Violence

References

Showing 1-10 of 13,452 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-05-00413-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 29, 2007

Raul Garcia v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Legal EthicsAttorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingTrade NameProfessional MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionState Bar of TexasProfessional Conduct RulesSafe HarborProcedural Due Process

References

Case No. 01-17-0002-1912

Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation

References

Case No. 01-07-01114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 28, 2010

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative LawTexas State BarProfessional ConductSafe Harbor

References

Case No. 03-98-00533-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals

References

Case No. Nos. 3:00-0448; 3:01-0216; 3:02-0129; 3:02-0152

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 06, 2003

Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Kelley

Miller ActERISABreach of ContractContempt of CourtFiduciary DutyJoint EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySurety BondPension FundsHealth Funds

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Building Industry Fund v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Summary JudgmentReconsideration MotionLabor LawTortious InterferenceUnion LiabilityUnincorporated AssociationAuthorization and RatificationNew York LawFederal PreemptionPicket Line Violence

References

Showing 1-10 of 13,452 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.