Re: Worth it for clients, or worse

Maybe a Freudian slip. Maybe not. No mistake necessarily, because the interests of Texas attorneys and clients of Texas attorneys are not co-extensive or necessarily aligned. At least not at the macro level in public policy terms, and often not at the micro level either (except, arguably, in a contingent fee context where the client’s gain is the lawyer’s gain, at a pre-specified discount).

The Texas Supreme Court and other policy-making courts are populated with lawyers’ lawyers that make life better for Texas attorneys, but not necessarily for the rest of society; – a larger category of humans that encompasses clients and former clients, i.e. consumers of legal services. In many instances at the expense of segments of the rest of society.

The array of attorney-friendly doctrinal judicial policy measures includes precedents requiring malpractice plaintiffs to prove their botched case-within-the-case, rather than merely the commission of malpractice under the applicable standard of care (which of course requires expert testimony of another licensed professional); precluding criminal clients from suing incompetent defense attorneys that botched their defense altogether once convicted (unless no services were performed at all after payment, per a recent Houston COA exception); granting civil immunity for fraudulent conduct committed within the scope of representation above and beyond judicial proceedings privilege (Cantey Hanger v Byrd)(as of this morning augmented to be actionable under the TCPA for defensive attorney fee recovery purposes, see Youngkin v Hines); not permitting non-attorneys to controvert attorney fee testimony because it is deemed expert testimony even if conclusory; allowing attorneys to sue their former clients in quantum meruit even when the alleged contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds (Hill v Shamoun & Norman, LLP), and allowing Teas attorney’s to carve out fee claims against their (future former) clients from an arbitration agreement that is binding on the client, and was required to be signed as a condition of service. (Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams LLP v Lopez).

Surely, an SBOT leader can also help shape judicial policy, rule revisions, and legislative policy to make it more attorney-friendly.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang Demino

PS: No disrespect. Just bona-fide different perspective on matters legal, Texas style.
Love your blog! Consistently one of the best blawgs in Texas. Informative and intellectually stimulating for lawyers and nonlawyers alike.