From Austin, Texas personal-injury/unemployment lawyer Joe Crews:

The State Bar's ethics "expert" Lillian Hardwick has hitched her horse to "concierge attorney" Robert S. "…" Bennett's ethical wagon: (Source.) Robert S. "…" Bennett, you'll recall, was the consumer lawyer who tried to represent Allen Stanford in a case that he seems to have gotten by badmouthing Kent Schaffer in an email: Allen Stanford Documents

The State Bar's "you criminal defense lawyers are all violating the rules already" response to concerns about the rule amendment gutting flat fees, which I marked here, was written by "Lillian Hartwick," whom the response describes as "a former chair of the State Bar TDRPC Committee." (Archived PDF here.) There is no "Lillian Hartwick" licensed to practice law in Texas. There is, however, a Lillian Hardwick. (The

Question D on the State Bar’s referendum seeks approval of amended rules 1.13, 1.14, and 1.17.Rule 1.13. Prohibited Sexual Relations(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 or expenses.(c) A lawyer

Besides an attempt to eviscerate flat fees, what is the State Bar asking us to approve in Question A of its referendum, and is any of it worth the harm that will be done to criminal defendants in Texas? Here’s Question A: Do you favor the adoption of Proposed Rules 1.00-1.05 and 1.15-1.16 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, as published in the December 2010

Current Disciplinary Rule 1.14 requires a Texas lawyer to hold property “belonging in whole or in part to clients” separate from her own property. Current Disciplinary Rule 1.05(d) requires her to “refund[] any advance payments of fee that has not been earned” when discharged. The State Bar’s position is that each of these lawyers in each of her cases—more than ten thousand lawyers, millions upon millions of

In its concerted effort to sell lawyers the bill of goods that is the amendments to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, the State Bar and its mouthpieces keep saying things like this: YOU MAY HAVE HEARD/READ: “The proposed rules will turn fee collection in the criminal defense world on its head.” CLARIFICATION: This concern may be a reference to proposed Rule 1.15 (regarding safekeeping of

More on my series of posts about the proposed amendments to the Disciplinary Rules, and specifically the State Bar's efforts to do away with flat fees in Question A of the referendum …The State Bar's theory appears to be that there exists a dichotomy: a fee is either "earned" or "refundable," so that if there is any possibility that a portion of a fee will have to

Furthering my discussion of the proposed amendments to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct …If you want to give me a very large gift, you may. The government will not, as a general rule, interfere. If you have giver's remorse, neither law nor equity will require that I return the gift except in narrow circumstances—where I have defrauded you or taken advantage of some particular vulnerability

From the State Bar of Texas, contact information for a young Houston criminal-defense lawyer:(Original here; archived PDF here.)Yes, the State Bar in fact says that this lawyer is employed by a Texas prison inmate (she is not), and gives that inmate's prison address as the lawyer's address (it is not). This is on the State Bar's lawyer-search site, where people can (theoretically) go to find reliable contact