CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

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
18
Case No. 01-23-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Richard Robins v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This appeal concerns an attorney-discipline proceeding in which attorney Richard Andert Robins was disbarred after a jury found him guilty of professional misconduct. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline accused Robins of violating multiple Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically for failing to surrender client files, filing frivolous cases, causing unreasonable delay, withholding facts from the tribunal to assist fraud, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Robins challenged the disbarment on various procedural and evidentiary grounds, including the dismissal of his religious discrimination counterclaim. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of professional misconduct and rejecting Robins's other arguments regarding juror misconduct and constitutional challenges.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductDisbarmentLegal EthicsFrivolous LitigationClient File RetentionCandor Toward TribunalDishonestyFraudMisrepresentation
References
49
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
16
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
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
20
Case No. 2019-02-0551
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2021

Maples, David ( McClain, Codi) v. Professional Personnel Services

This case involves Codi McClain, son of deceased employee David Maples, seeking death benefits from Professional Personnel Services and American Zurich. Mr. Maples died on December 16, 2017, after a work-related fall. Although funeral expenses were voluntarily paid by Professional Personnel, the claim for death benefits was later denied by American Zurich. McClain filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on November 18, 2019, almost two years after Mr. Maples's death. Professional Personnel Services filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that McClain failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. The Court determined that McClain's reason for the late filing (difficulty hiring an attorney) was insufficient to toll the statute. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing McClain's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDeath BenefitsTimeliness of FilingWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissLegal ProcedureAppellate RightsCourt of Workers’ Compensation ClaimsPrejudice Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

Raghunath Dass, P.E. v. Texas Board of Professional Engineers

Appellant Raghunath Dass, PE, appeals sanctions imposed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) for alleged violations of the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Dass asserts the TBPE lacked jurisdiction over the case facts and authority to amend its final order while under judicial review. He argues that the TBPE's amended final order is void because the agency modified a decision during judicial review. Additionally, Dass contends the TBPE lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to regulate construction material testing (CMT), which he argues is not "professional engineering." He also challenges the TBPE's authority to restrict competitive bidding for CMT and asserts that the 2005/2009 CME Policy Advisory Opinion, relied upon by the Board, is an invalid and unenforceable standard not promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, Dass argues that even if the testing was Construction Materials Engineering (CME), Naismith Engineering, not Dass, was the supervising engineer for the project.

Engineering RegulationProfessional ConductLicensing SanctionsAdministrative OverreachStatutory InterpretationPublic Works ProjectsRegulatory ComplianceJudicial OversightAgency Rules ValidityProfessional Responsibility
References
16
Case No. M2021-01141-SC-R3-BP
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2022

Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Candes Vonniest Prewitt

This case involves an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee concerning attorney Candes Vonniest Prewitt's professional misconduct. A hearing panel found Prewitt violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures in expert disclosures, conflicts of interest due to a romantic relationship with her client, and improper withdrawal from representation. The Chancery Court affirmed these findings and the imposed sanctions, which included a thirty-day suspension, additional ethics education, and a practice monitor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee subsequently affirmed the decisions of both the hearing panel and the trial court, upholding the findings of misconduct and the disciplinary actions.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductConflict of InterestRules of Professional ConductAttorney CompetenceDiligenceWithdrawal from RepresentationExpert DisclosureLegal EthicsSanctions
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This is a disciplinary action brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney David M. Butler for professional misconduct. Butler represented Gerald Prado in a worker's compensation suit and arranged for other attorneys, Randy Schaffer and Cynthia Henley, to represent Prado in a criminal matter, with their fees to be paid from the worker's compensation settlement via an assignment. When the settlement funds were received, Butler advised Prado not to pay Schaffer and Henley and disbursed all funds to Prado, despite knowing of their claim. The trial court found Butler violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14(c) (safekeeping property) and 8.04(a)(3) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), imposing a six-month suspension (one month active, two years probated) and ordering him to pay attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings of legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the violations and the imposed sanctions.

Attorney MisconductProfessional EthicsClient Funds MisappropriationFiduciary Duty BreachWorkers' Compensation SettlementLegal Fee DisputeTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductFraudulent MisrepresentationAttorney SuspensionAppellate Review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 758 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational