Decision Blocking Pay for Special Prosecutors on Ken Paxton Case Upheld on Appeal
The Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to overturn a ruling that's preventing the three Houston attorneys appointed as special prosecutors in the criminal case against Ken Paxton from getting paid.
November 21, 2018 at 01:27 PM
3 minute read
The Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to overturn a ruling that's preventing the three Houston attorneys appointed as special prosecutors in the criminal case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from getting paid.
The attorneys, Brian Wice, Kent Schaffer and Nicole DeBorde, filed a writ of mandamus last year seeking to overturn a ruling by Dallas' Fifth Court of Appeals that vacated an order by trial Judge George Gallagher to pay the lawyers about $205,000 for prosecuting the case based on a $300 hourly fee rate.
Paxton was indicted in July 2015 by a Collin County grand jury on three felony charges. He has denied the prosecutors' allegations that he misled investors he personally recruited in 2011 for a high-tech startup that allegedly paid Paxton 100,000 shares.
Wice, Schaffer and DeBorde were appointed to handle the case. The Collin County District Attorney's Office recused itself from the matter, but the Collin County Commissioners Court opposed Gallagher's order requiring them to pay the attorneys' bill because it conflicted with Collin County's fixed-rate fee schedule. They later won a ruling from the Fifth Court voiding the payment—a decision that the CCA upheld in its recent decision.
“The commissioner's court is correct that we are not called upon to determine whether the payment ordered in this case is reasonable. We are only asked to determine whether the applicable statute limits the trial court's ability to approve an hourly rate when the fee schedule approved by the local judges prescribes a fixed rate,” wrote CCA Judge David Newell.
“This is the business we've chosen. We agree with the commissioner's court that the statute in question limits the trial court's authority, and we agree with the court of appeals that the … order for payment should be vacated,” Newell wrote.
Wice, who handled the mandamus action for the attorneys, said they are considering their next move.
“While we are disappointed with the majority's ruling and are exploring all legal options available to us, it does not alter the fact that Ken Paxton remains charged with three serious felony offenses,” Wice wrote in an e-mail.
Wice had previously argued that the Fifth Court's decision abused its discretion by blocking the special prosecutor's payment—a ruling he alleged will have a chilling effect on the ability of trial judges to appoint qualified lawyers to take on complicated and serious cases.
Clyde Siebman, a partner in Sherman's Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith who represents the Collin County Commissioners Court in the case, also did not return a call for comment.
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
© 2024 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 AllDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 2Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 3UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 4Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 56th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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