11 Judges in Texas Were Sanctioned. What Happened Next is a Mystery
The Houston-area judges were sanctioned in August for their bail bond practices, but the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct has deleted their public admonitions from its website. The judges' lawyer said the sanctions were withdrawn, and the matter is concluded. But judicial ethics experts say that would be unprecedented.
December 06, 2019 at 11:36 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct has deleted from its website public sanctions it issued against 11 Houston-area current and past judges for their bail bond practices.
Houston attorney Nicole DeBorde Hochglaube, who represents the 11 judges, said that shortly after the commission sent out the public admonitions in a news release Aug. 29, commission interim executive director Jackie Habersham called her to say the commission was withdrawing the sanctions.
'They took it back'
The withdrawal is just becoming public because it's been hidden by the agency's strict confidentiality requirements.
"No information about it should be public, because theoretically, there is no longer this public admonition. They took it back," said Hochglaube, partner in Hochglaube & DeBorde in Houston. "It didn't even happen, from a legal standpoint."
Hochglaube said the commission's confidentiality requirements bind her from divulging much information about the cases. The same secrecy provisions also prevented Texas Lawyer from confirming the withdrawal of the sanctions.
"Due to the agency's strict confidentiality rules, I'm not able to comment at this time on the issue," said an email by Habersham.
It's unprecedented for the commission to issue public sanctions and then delete them with no explanation, according to two Texas judicial conduct experts.
"A public admonition that's actually published—I haven't heard of that—and then withdrawn. This doesn't compute for me," said Chuck Herring, partner in Herring & Panzer in Austin, who authors an annual book on lawyer ethics with a chapter devoted to judicial ethics.
Austin solo practitioner Lillian Hardwick, who practices judicial ethics law, also said it's unprecedented.
"I've never seen them do that before," Hardwick said.
In the past, sanctions disappeared from the commission's website when a judge appealed a sanction, which results in a superseding ruling from a special court of review, she noted.
But none of these judges have appealed, according to Texas Supreme Court Deputy Chief Clerk Claudia Jenks, who wrote in an email that none of the 11 judges have appealed their sanctions.
Hardwick added that she's seen situations where the commission issued a sanction but later reviewed it again and issued an amended sanction. In one of these cases, a judge's original and amended sanction both still appear on the commission's site. In another situation, only the judge's amended sanction appeared; the original may have been private, Hardwick guessed.
Misconception?
The judges' attorney told Law.com affiliate Texas Lawyer she is not expecting to see amended sanctions here.
"I can tell you: I believe the matter to be concluded," Hochglaube said. "In my opinion, this has created a difficult situation for us, because of how this happened."
Hardwick said that procedurally, if the commission wanted to withdraw the 11 judges' sanctions, it could re-review the allegations against them and then determine the matters should be administratively dismissed, rather than issuing amended sanctions. With any administrative dismissal, the person who originally filed the complaint receives a dismissal notice, and has one chance to seek a review of the decision, she added.
The 11 Houston judges' original public admonitions, which were nearly identical, said that the judges gave instructions to Harris County criminal law hearing officers to deny all personal recognizance bonds, because the judges wanted to determine bond for defendants in their own courts. Even after the county's bail practices changed in 2017, many of the sanctioned judges told hearing officers to keep following a bond schedule, said the admonitions. Among other things, the commission found that the judges failed to comply with the law and maintain competence in the law because these bond practices violated hearing officers' legal authority to make decisions on bond.
Hochglaube previously told Texas Lawyer that the public admonitions contained misconceptions about what Texas law says about district judges and felony bail bond practices. It's incorrect that these judges violated the law, she said, adding that she thinks the commission is not a court designed to answer such questions of law. She also said that magistrates in Harris County specifically asked for judges' guidance for bonding situations, and the guidance was provided in a memorandum by the courts' administrative office and legal department.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1BOI Reports: What Business Owners and Attorneys Should Know
- 2SurePoint Acquires Legal Practice Management Company ZenCase
- 3Day Pitney Announces Partner Elevations
- 4The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 5Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250