ONLY REGARDING PROPOSITION “D”: DON’T HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CLIENTS – PERIOD! BRIGHT LINE RULE!

ONE TRICK PONY BROKEN RECORD STANDLEY here AGAIN! I don’t care how many damn meetings, committee conferences and the like have taken place over the last 15 years! No wait – how bout SINCE 1938 when the State Bar of Texas was created. Who needs ANY guidance whatsoever that this ONE RULE should PASS – NOW? If ALL these rules fall – and I KNOW “we” don’t give a damn “what people think” – but for the love of God this is just idiotic that the media won’t be printing how this or that Flat Fee Rule fell flat. What we will see is: Texas Lawyers Voted DOWN OWN PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE PROHIBITION against having sex with clients. It’s interesting though how historically the one profession that has made up State and Federal Governmental Law and Rule making decisions across this great Country have been and are Attorneys. Yes – the very same profession that made it a CRIME for Mental & Medical Health professionals AND SPIRITUAL advisers to engage in the same conduct. At least THESE “Professions” have a simple little professional conduct rule of their own – yet they get a CRIME on the books to boot. Lawyers get neither! How much more of an emotionally charged and emotionally dependent victim rich environment can one ask for with a human being facing their own or a loved one’s loss of Liberty, Money and custody of chattel – oh pardon me – CHILDREN?

I respectfully ask all members to Vote FOR PROPOSITION “D” – EVEN IF Moses himself writes a post in this distinguished Blog advocating the opposite. Thank You for your time.

Larry

Hi, Mark–

Whatever version of the Texas Disciplinary Rules is in effect after today, I would be happy to speak to a group of criminal defense attorneys about compliance with the Rules. I have conducted quite a number of CLEs for lawyers in particular practice areas, and I always try to learn Rules pitfalls awaiting lawyers in their areas so I can tailor the presentation for them. As I and others have said multiple times, the supposed “flat fee” issue exists under the 1990 Rules in Texas, as well as the proposed Rules.

I’ve not had much exposure to criminal defense work. I did, however, prepare–at no fee–an expert report in connection with a grievance filed by a prisoner a couple of years ago. As he has now been released, I guess he had a point somewhere. That was Anthony Graves.

Also, when requested by court-appointed defense counsel last year, I prepared a report opposing the District Attorney’s motion to recuse a judge. That motion was ultimately denied, so I hope my report helped. My fee was ultimately paid by the State, which I thought appropriate, as I never saw a basis for the recusal motion in the first place.

As to Larry Warner’s post, Larry was quite confused about a number of aspects of the Committee. First, I think that Larry got appointed to the Committee right about the time that his work peaked, as he missed quite a number of meetings. I regretted that, as we wanted a criminal defense attorney on board once Walter Steele went off the committee. Larry came onto the Committee right as I became sole chair. All of the Rule language had already been sent to the Court and debated with the Task Force. Thus, that ship had long since sailed, and none of us–including Larry but not just Larry–revisited Rule language. Our job at that point was to work on comments, which never much seemed to interest him. I’m sorry that Larry never quite understood this, as I explained it to him whenever he did show up for meetings. I will say that Larry often had a difficult time understanding when and where our meetings were, although he received the same notices that everyone else did. I’m sure his busy work schedule was to blame.

Also, I’m pretty flattered that Larry thought I was a “law professor.” Maybe he confused me with Bob Schuwerk, my co-author on a treatise on Texas lawyer and judicial ethics, who is a law professor and has done quite a bit of pro bono work with criminal defendants. Bob was on the Committee then and still is. I always started each Committee meeting explaining what we were doing and why. Again, had Larry not missed so many meetings, maybe he would have been clearer about our mission.

So, no, I wasn’t earning a law school salary while on the committee. I also wasn’t a member of a firm and enjoying the benefits of work of associates. Years ago, when I started doing consulting work, I decided to stop doing any advocacy work (i.e., representing clients in the conventional sense). I figured that an “expert” who acts as an expert one day and an advocate the next can get the roles confused, and I wanted to offer expert advice in as objective a way as possible. And, yes, that cut into my income quite a bit, as I waited for my consulting business to grow. Then when I became chair of the Committee, that work became all-consuming, as it was so important. I turned down consulting jobs if they would interfere with my Committee work. Apart from the small amount of royalties I receive from the treatise Bob and I write, my only income is from my consulting work. (Oh, yes, I receive about $1200/year from online CLEs.) Thus, every hour I spent on the Committee work was an hour I couldn’t spend earning consulting fees. In my peak months (and there were many such months), I spent 100 hours a month with the Committee work.

So if I can help, please give me a call. I figure that I have learned what I have on the Committee and about the Rules so that I can share it.

Lillian B. Hardwick