UPDATE: Under Bill, Texas Bar Card Would Let Lawyers Skip Courthouse Security Across Texas
Under House Bill 1359, which is getting a public hearing on Monday, any licensed lawyer in Texas would be able to skip courthouse security simply by showing their State Bar of Texas membership cards.
April 08, 2019 at 09:43 AM
4 minute read
Updated at 4:43 p.m.
Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, has drastically changed his bill that proposes a statewide attorney card that would allow lawyers to skip long courthouse security lines across the Lone Star State.
Wu presented a committee substitute of his legislation, House Bill 1359, that—unlike the original—wouldn't let a lawyer use his regular State Bar of Texas membership card to bypass court security.
Instead, under the substitute, lawyers would apply with the Texas Bar for a brand new court access card, with the lawyer's photo on it, for use in any of Texas's 254 counties. The Texas Bar would create a committee to accept applications and vet applicants, which would include a criminal history check to be repeated annually for card holders, explained Wu to members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on April 8. Lawyers would pay a fee to cover the Texas Bar's costs in issuing the cards, and part of the fee would go back to a lawyer's home county to be spent on court security.
“We're just saying attorneys are trusted individuals. We are already screened by the bar once and continuously monitored by the bar,” Wu said.
Wu noted that some smaller counties already allow lawyers to bypass security simply by showing their normal State Bar card, and his bill would not stop that process. However, many other counties have individualized applications and access cards–which this statewide card would replace.
Representatives of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and Texas Lawyers Group testified in favor of the bill, but witnesses from a justice-of-the peace court association and people from court systems in Dallas, Tarrant and Travis counties were opposed.
Read the newest version of HB 1359 here.
Original story from 9:43 a.m.
If a lawyer practicing through Texas wishes to avoid long courthouse security lines, there's a lot of paperwork involved.
Each of the state's 254 counties has its own rules for lawyers to apply for an identification card that lets them skip metal detectors.
There's got to be a better way.
Under House Bill 1359, which is getting a public hearing on Monday, any licensed lawyer in Texas would be able to skip courthouse security simply by showing their State Bar of Texas membership cards.
The bill by Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, would do away with the county-specific identification cards that lawyers currently must obtain to get into justice courts, municipal courts, county courts, county courts-at-law or district courts. Their state bar membership card would be all that's required across Texas.
HB 1359 also says that no county would be able to adopt rules or enforce orders that conflicted with the bill's provisions.
State bar president-elect Randy Sorrels campaigned on a promise to institute a statewide courthouse security badge. Last fall, the bar convened a task force to determine how to make it happen. Sorrels told Texas Lawyer at the time that a statewide badge would make it more efficient for lawyers to go to court, and it would save them money that they're currently paying for county-specific IDs, which can add up when a lawyer needs badges in multiple counties.
State bar spokesman Lowell Brown noted that HB 1359 is not part of the bar's legislative agenda.
Monday's hearing before the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee begins bright and early at 8 a.m.
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 AllAdvising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
4 minute readHomegrown Texas Law Firms Expanded Outside the Lone Star State in 2024 As Out-of-State Firms Moved In
5 minute readEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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