Commissioners Vote to Replace Judge Who Inadvertently Resigned on Facebook
Harris County Civil Court-at-Law No. 4 Judge William “Bill” McLeod is off the bench, after accidentally resigning by declaring his interest in running for the Texas Supreme Court. His replacement is Lesley Briones, a 2007 Yale Law School graduate formerly of Vinson & Elkins.
April 09, 2019 at 08:23 PM
5 minute read
Harris County commissioners voted to replace the judge who accidentally resigned by declaring his interest in running for the Texas Supreme Court, not knowing that the Texas Constitution provision said it meant he automatically had to step down from the bench after announcing his candidacy.
In the meeting where scores of people declared passionate support for former Harris County Civil Court-at-Law No. 4 Judge William “Bill” McLeod, asking commissioners to allow him to keep his bench as a holdover official until a special election in 2020, the audience was booing and yelling loudly as commissioners voted to appoint his replacement.
Commissioners voted 4-1, with Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack against, to appoint Lesley Briones, a 2007 Yale Law School graduate who worked at Vinson & Elkins for four years before becoming COO and general counsel of the Laura & John Arnold Foundation, a major philanthropic nonprofit headquartered in Houston.
After her appointment, as people in the room yelled over her, Briones acknowledged the consternation in the room and she said that, once people got to know her, she hoped they'd trust her for her strong work ethic and integrity.
“I am humbled and grateful. I deeply believe in justice and fairness for all. I voted for Judge McLeod and I have deep respect for you, sir. I also have deep respect for the law,” she said. “I love Harris County, and I love this community. … You will see that through my hard work and dedication.”
Earlier in the meeting, McLeod spoke in a shaky voice and paused at times, fighting back tears, to explain how it came to be that he resigned his bench by accident.
He said he relied on the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to form his belief that he could keep his bench as he ran for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Only later did he learn of the automatic-resignation provision in the state Constitution and said he apologized and accepted ownership of his mistake.
He held up a 2 inch thick stack of white paper and said, “This is the Texas Constitution. It's got 496 amendments. It's over 87,000 words. It's the second-largest state Constitution in our union, and I'm sorry I didn't have it down.”
Scores of Houstonians advocated passionately for McLeod keeping his bench, saying he was just and merciful, worked such long hours that he practically lives at the courthouse, had formed trusting relationships with communities of color and more.
Eric Dick, an attorney who's practiced before McLeod, said the judge was a reasonable jurist who delivered justice equally to Republicans and Democrats and plaintiffs and defendants.
“He's a really decent judge,” said Dick, a trustee on the Harris County Board of Education. “I do not recommend replacing him.”
Harris County Assistant County Attorney Doug Ray said that his legal opinion is that McLeod did trigger the automatic resignation provision in the Texas Constitution. He said the County Attorney's Office found that McLeod had announced to multiple groups that he was running for the Supreme Court, there was a website about his candidacy and McLeod filed paperwork that listed a treasurer for his campaign.
Ray said that commissioners had two options. They could appoint someone else to take over as judge, until the election in 2020, or they could take no action, which would trigger a holdover provision in the state Constitution, which says the current officeholder remains in office until a qualified replacement is in place.
However, leaving McLeod in office would raise one thorny legal issue.
The county itself is a litigant in cases pending in County Court-at-Law No. 4, explained Ray. McLeod would likely need to recuse himself from those cases, because it raises a question of judicial ethics, since he knows that, if the county disliked one of his rulings in its cases, the county had the power to replace him.
Commissioners adjourned into executive session to discuss the matter, and when they returned, County Judge Lina Hidalgo said that, if the court kept McLeod as a holdover, it would set a precedent for other county officials to run for another office and keep their current position. Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis said the court needed to adopt a fair and consistent policy, although it would be painful in McLeod's situation.
Commissioner Adrian Garcia agreed, saying, “Nothing is more painful than to have to make this difficult decision, but there is too much on the table for us to risk, as we contemplate how to handle this matter. I think the only way to resolve it is to move forward.”
Garcia said Briones would be an outstanding replacement. The court then heard from at least 15 witnesses who supported Briones' appointment, saying she was an impressive litigator, had a strong moral compass, had a passionate commitment to public service, kept a keen attention to detail in the law and that she would respect everyone before her court and form trusting relationships with minorities, just as McLeod had done.
Ellis noted that there would still be a special election in 2020 for the bench, and McLeod would be free to run again.
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 AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
- 2NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 3ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 4Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 5Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
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