On Twitter, Lawyers Trash a Bill That Would Allow Them to Bypass Court Security
Coverage of a Texas bill that would grant a statewide court access card for lawyers, letting them skip security lines, spurred an interesting debate…
April 09, 2019 at 01:21 PM
4 minute read
Coverage of a Texas bill that would grant a statewide court access card for lawyers, letting them skip security lines, spurred an interesting debate on Twitter yesterday, with at least 50 attorneys and judges weighing in.
House Bill 1359 by Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, initially proposed a system where all an attorney would need to do is flash his or her State Bar of Texas membership card to bypass security at any courthouse across the Lone Star State.
This would be much different than under current law, which lets each of Texas' 254 counties decide whether and how to grant lawyers the fast-track. Some counties let counsel in with the bar card alone, while others require an application, background check and fee to get a special ID card.
But the idea of security-free entrance with only a state bar card rubbed many lawyers the wrong way, so they tweeted their disdain. One prosecutor, who goes by @LBDubya on Twitter, used the example of an attorney charged with murder to drive home her argument that ”state bar cannot police attorneys in real time.”
A defense attorney in my county was charged with murder in 14 and could've bypass security on the way to his trial in 16 under this legislation. The bar didn't take action against him until 17, a year after he was sentenced. The state bar cannot police attorneys in real time.
— LBDubya (@LBDubya) April 8, 2019
But others were not impressed, including appellate litigator Ryan Clinton of Austin, who's a former Texas assistant solicitor general and now shareholder at Davis, Gerald & Cremer.
“I've watched as a judge semi-secretly called for more security in the courtroom due to a lawyer's let's-just-say 'instability,' ” Clinton tweeted. “ So I'm opposed to any bill that would automatically exempt lawyers from security checks.”
We're interested in hearing from more people who have comments or concerns about HB 1359. Tweet your feedback to @AMorrisReports at this thread right here, and she will like and retweet witty comments.
This content has been archived.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