No $300/Hour Payday for Prosecutors in Felony Cases Against Texas AG Ken Paxton
The judge presiding over Paxton's case agreed to pay special prosecutors $300 per hour, but the case has been delayed for years over their fee, as Collin County commissioners argued that there's a statute saying the county can only pay the prosecutors the same fee that an appointed indigent defense attorney would receive.
June 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM
2 minute read
Ken Paxton.
The special prosecutors who have been handling the felony case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton were initially expecting to earn $300 per hour, but those hopes were dashed Wednesday.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a motion for rehearing on an opinion it issued in November 2018 that determined that Texas law caps special prosecutors' pay at the same amount that Collin County pays to indigent criminal-defense attorneys.
“We're disappointed that the Court took six months to summarily deny our motion for rehearing without addressing any of the substantial legal issues it raised, something it routinely criticizes the courts of appeals for doing,” said Attorney Pro Tem Brian Wice of Houston, who is prosecuting Paxton along with Houston attorneys Kent Schaffer and Nicole DeBorde.
When a district attorney has a conflict of interest in prosecuting a criminal defendant, the district attorney must recuse his office from the case and appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute the case.
Paxton was indicted in 2015—eight months after he won 2014's election—on two first-degree felony securities fraud charges and a third-degree felony charge for failure to register as an investment adviser representative. The Collin County district attorney, Greg Willis, had past business dealings with Paxton and recused from the case. Wice, Schaffer and DeBorde were appointed to handle the matter.
The judge presiding over Paxton's case agreed to pay them $300 per hour, but the case has been delayed for years over their fee, as Collin County commissioners argued that there's a statute saying the county can only pay the prosecutors the same fee that an appointed indigent defense attorney would receive. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with that interpretation last November, and the prosecutors filed a motion for rehearing.
In today's ruling, the high court denied rehearing, which means its November opinion will stand.
Related stories:
Decision Blocking Pay for Special Prosecutors on Ken Paxton Case Upheld on Appeal
Special Prosecutors, Citing Lack of Pay, Seek Delay of Paxton Trial
Read the prosecutors' motion for rehearing:
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 All
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 2Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 3Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 4Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 5Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
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
