Photo: Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock.com

One $288,000 fee dispute between an attorney and district attorney has ended—for now—while another, for $89,000, between a client and his former family law attorney will proceed to arbitration, after the Texas Supreme Court denied review in the two cases.

Because the high court rejected the appeals, it means the intermediate appellate court rulings will stand. Both opinions came in March from Tyler's 12th Court of Appeals.

The first, Robbins v. Lostracco, involved a fee dispute between Lufkin solo practitioner Paul Robbins and Nacogdoches County District Attorney Nicole Lostracco.

Lostracco hired Robbins to prosecute civil forfeiture cases for her office, and in an email, she agreed to pay him a portion of proceeds from her office's cut of the forfeitures.

In 2015, the Nacogdoches County Sheriff's Office seized $1.15 million after an investigation, and Robbins successfully prosecuted the forfeiture. Robbins invoiced the district attorney's office for nearly $288,000, but the Nacogdoches County Commissioner's Court refused to pay the invoice. Robbins sued Lostracco in her official capacity for breach of contract.

Lostracco argued that she had governmental immunity and the trial court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. In 2018, the trial court dismissed Robbins's lawsuit with prejudice.

The 12th Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. However, Robbins argued in the appeal that the trial court should not have dismissed the case with prejudice, because he could cure the jurisdictional problem if he were to get “a legislative resolution granting him permission to sue.” Therefore, the court modified the trial court's judgment to dismiss Robbins's lawsuit without prejudice.

Robbins and his attorney, Stephen R. Walker, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

But Bill Helfand, partner in Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Houston, who represented Lostracco, said it's essentially impossible for Robbins to get a legislative resolution to sue.

“You've got to get two houses of a very divided legislative body to agree to let this one guy sue. To sue for what? To take money, the use of public funds—that go for law enforcement—to go to him,” Helfand said, noting that the dispute also involved questions about whether Robbins did work to earn the fee, and whether the district attorney's agreement to pay him was a valid contract or not.

Conflict of interest

The second case before the high court hinged on whether to send a fee dispute to arbitration.

The Martel v. Compte opinion explained that Joseph Martel hired attorney Faye Compte and her firm, Starr Schoenbrun & Comte, for a lawsuit to modify their parent-child relationship. The representation contract said the client should dispute any bills within 10 days of an invoice, and if he didn't raise a complaint within 30 days, he waived his right to complain about the bill. The contract said if the client and lawyer couldn't resolve a fee dispute, it would go to arbitration.

Over the following months, Martel paid $89,000 in attorney fees. Then in 2017, the firm cited a conflict of interest and withdrew from representing him. Martel alleged that the firm should forfeit the fees because it had a conflict of interest and never should have accepted his representation. He demanded arbitration with the firm, but the firm refused. This prompted Martel to sue Compte and her firm to compel arbitration, but a trial court denied Martel's motion to compel.

The court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Martel's motion to compel arbitration. The court rendered an order to grant his motion and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to stay the matter until arbitration is completed.

McKinney solo practitioner Daniel B. Jones, who represented Martel, declined to comment.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith associate Michael Gonzales, who represented Compte and her firm, didn't immediately respond to a call or email seeking comment.