Publications – Articles: The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas (“OCDC”) Attorney Ethics & Professional Responsibility

 The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas (“OCDC”)
Attorney Ethics & Professional Responsibility
 

“Even the Star indicated that there could be a connection between the evaluation action by Boswell and the amended grievance to the state bar. Re-entering the action — Cotroneo’s attorney Bob Bennett. In a written message, Bennett said Marra’s complaint has added information but the issue remains the same, Cotroneo was not Marra’s attorney. Bennett stated that Marra filed her first complaint on Nov, 3, 2011, a “mere” four days prior to the commencement of her trial for violating the reporting requirements. “It appears that it was filed to be used in the trial to attack the city attorney,” Bennett said. […]”  Click the Title to continue reading [Blog: myleadernews.com].

“In attempting to avoid grievances, consider using the OCDC’s Attorney Ethics Helpline to answer any questions about an attorney’s ethical obligations to clients, courts, and the public as established by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The Helpline can provide access to rules, verbal ethical opinions, and prior written ethics that will help you make informed decisions about your law practice. Previous written opinions by the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court (Texas) are also available from the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism (www.txethics.org).”  Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“The articles mention statements of the White House insisting that the presidents’ role had been minimal and that it was primarily Harriet Miers’ idea to fire the U.S. attorneys (NYT, March 14, 2007). Bush himself defended the firings but criticized how they were explained to Congress (MSNBC, March 16, 2007). It is also stated that the dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October 2006 that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman (Washington post, March 13, 2007; NYT, March 14, 2007). However, White House officials repeated that Mr. Bush had not called for the removal of any particular U.S. attorney and said there was no evidence that the president had been aware that the Justice Department had initiated a process to generate a list of which prosecutors should lose their jobs (NYT, March 14, 2007) ” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“When a grievance is filed against a Texas lawyer, it is carefully reviewed by the State Bar of Texas’ Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) and, within thirty days, a determination will be made as to whether it contains allegations of professional misconduct. When a grievance fails to allege misconduct, it is classified as an “Inquiry” and is dismissed.i A grievance that successfully alleges professional misconduct is classified as a “Complaint,” and the respondent-attorney is given written notice of the alleged acts and/or omissions in the Complaint and any potential violations of the disciplinary rules.ii Upon receipt of such notice, the respondent-attorney must inform the OCDC whether he elects to have the Complaint heard in a district court of proper venue, with or without a jury, or by an Evidentiary Panel of the OCDC.iii The election must be in writing and served upon the OCDC no later than twenty days after receipt of notice. Failure to timely file an election will render the respondent-attorney subject to the Evidentiary Panel, by default.” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“Fee sharing did not always require client consent. And when one attorney forwarded a client to another attorney, there was often no expectation of further involvement. The referring attorney in certain significant personal injury cases could expect a payment for the referral. Millions of dollars changed hands this way. The practice was very common with certain attorneys who had enormous television advertising budgets and handled cases in a wholesale manner” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“As Kathleen Parker, columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group has pointedly suggested, we now can add a “new verb to our American lexicon – adding ‘to Nifong’ to those moments which “call for activities that do not require elaboration, such as “Bobbitt,” “Bork,” and “Lewinsky.” We can “now ‘Nifong’ someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes.” How does this assessment of Nifong’s actions hold up under analysis of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC)? Quite well in fact!” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“Mediation is public policy in the State of Texas. The purpose of mediation is to provide a forum in which an impartial person, the mediator, facilitates communication between the parties to promote peaceable resolution of disputes and the early settlement of pending litigation through voluntary settlement procedures.[1] Furthermore, ―[i]t is the responsibility of courts to carry out the statutory policy.‖[2] One would expect that the office in charge of attorney discipline, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (―OCDC‖), would be interested in setting an example by using mediation whenever possible, especially in light of the ―expenses‖ and State Bar attorneys’ fees that are ultimately incurred and sometimes recovered in varying degrees from a Respondent in cases where misconduct is found. Surprisingly there is one lone voice in the legal world that opposes mediation, the OCDC regarding disciplinary matters, as set forth below.” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“This article summarizes the points of the compliance and ethics program detailed in the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines, the tenor of the ABA Model Rules calling for such a program, the similarities between the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines and the sanctions factors in the Texas procedural rules, and the general nature of the compliance program recently submitted in negotiation with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. Prior to a discussion of these topics, however, appears a brief explanation of the relevance of the attorney disciplinary system for all practicing Texas lawyers.” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].

“Ruth A. Kollman is a shareholder in the Kollman Firm of Dallas. She is an ethics lawyer who has written articles on topics related to legal ethics and grievance defense. Robert S. Bennett is a name partner in Houston’s Bennett Cochran. He defends lawyers in State Bar of Texas grievance and disciplinary proceedings and in criminal prosecutions. He is a former assistant U.S. attorney who is board certified in consumer law.” Click the Title to continue reading [PDF].

“The term barratry originates from the Anglo-Norman French word “baraterie,” meaning “deception.” It first surfaced in late thirteenth century English society as a term attached to the clogging of court dockets with frivolous lawsuits.  By the fourteenth century, local English courts began to prosecute those believed to be guilty of committing barratry.  Barrators were generally viewed as trouble makers and by the late sixteenth century, barratry became a blanket term used to denote both vexatious litigation and verbal offenses.4 The twentieth century witnessed a shift in the way society viewed barratry. With the passage of section 13(1) (a) of the Criminal Law Act of 1967, it was labeled an obsolete crime and ultimately abolished in England and Wales.5 In Australia, the term was used to refer to litigants who brought up frivolous suits; however it has long since fallen into disuse.”  Click the Title to continue reading [PDF].

“Editor’s note: No attorney wants to be grieved or sued for malpractice. So what can be done to avoid such claims? Texas Lawyer brought together six legal malpractice/grievance attorneys on June 30 to discuss these issues and offer some advice. The following discussion has been edited for length and style.”  Click the Title to continue reading debate [PDF].

“The basic flaw in the present “grief-ance” system is that once an attorney is summoned to an investigatory hearing, there is a built-in presumption that whatever the attorney did was wrong and whatever the complainant (usually the former client) says is true. In the most clear-cut of situations, an attorney probably does not need his own counsel, but a quick reading of the rules and the knowledge that a “hanging” mentality may permeate the hearing, should quickly jolt one to consider how much their law license is worth. A single violation is sufficient to bar you from ever practicing law again. With the State Bar now participating in “sting” operations, a thorough knowledge of the ethical rules for your daily practice is essential. A working knowledge of how a complaint will be handled will save a lot of “grief’ that one may have to endure because of greed, ignorance, or inattention. You can emerge a winner from the process but why run the race if you don’t have to.” Click the Title to continue reading [PDF].

“An attorney disciplinary proceeding is, perhaps, one of the most traumatic, exhausting and financially draining experiences a lawyer can face. As members of a self-policing profession, we accept the burdens placed on us by disciplinary proceedings as an evil necessary to protect both the integrity of our profession and individuals who deal with attorneys. Protection of the integrity of our profession, however, should not come at the expense of attorneys facing disciplinary proceedings” Click the Article’s Title to continue reading [PDF].