Does Texas Have Enough Resources to Discipline Unethical Attorneys?
Austin legal ethics solo practitioner Jim McCormack, a former Texas Bar chief disciplinary counsel, said the state is "doing 2019 grievance work with a 1991 grievance system."
September 25, 2019 at 02:59 PM
6 minute read
Attorney discipline statistics in Texas over the past 10 years show a grievance system that's surprisingly flat, despite steady increases in the state's lawyer population.
The number of complaints that ended in sanctions climbed and dipped over the decade with no clear trend but always stayed in the range 400 to 600 per year. The number of sanctions is lower because one attorney might have multiple complaints resolved with one sanction.
But over the past 10 years, the disciplinary counsel's office has doled out between 315 to 415 sanctions each year.
|'1991 grievance system'
Austin legal ethics solo practitioner Jim McCormack, a former Texas Bar chief disciplinary counsel, said those total sanction numbers are on par with a review he did many years ago that looked at the grievance system spanning back to the 1990s.
"It looks like essentially we are doing 2019 grievance work with a 1991 grievance system," McCormack said. "I think it's worth asking the question: Do we have the right-sized grievance system?"
But Chief Disciplinary Counsel Seana Willing said she doesn't see anything alarming in the statistics.
Willing, who assumed her post in March, said she's unsure why the total number of sanctions has remained in the 300 to 400 range over the past decade. She hopes the reason is because her office has effectively created a deterrent against attorneys committing misconduct.
"If you are doing a good job, you wouldn't see more sanctions, more discipline," Willing said. "I feel like the [Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office] and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline are doing an amazing job as far as their mission to protect the public. I think that's kind of the key that drives us to do what we do."
Claire Reynolds, spokeswoman of the chief disciplinary counsel's office, said that the total number of sanctions has probably remained constant because it's tracking the total number of grievances that people filed against lawyers.
Although the Lone Star State's attorney population grew by 19% from 86,500 in 2009 to 103,000 in 2018, the number of grievances that people filed against attorneys has remained fairly constant. In the past 10 years, grievances have ranged from 7,200 to 8,000 annually, or an average of 7,600.
|The grievance funnel
The vast majority of grievances fizzle, either because they never alleged any attorney misconduct, or because disciplinary counsel found there wasn't just cause to believe that misconduct occurred.
Every year, between 70% to 80% of grievances are classified as inquiries and dismissed because they don't allege attorney misconduct. The percentage of grievances classified as complaints, which can proceed through the system, has ranged from 20% to 31% of total grievances filed over the past 10 years, for an average of 2,018 complaints per year.
Yet even when classified as complaints, these allegations often fail. Three-quarters of the complaints end with disciplinary counsel recommending dismissal, after not finding just cause that misconduct occurred.
Other times, a complaint doesn't bring a sanction because disciplinary counsel might lose a case before a grievance committee or in a district court, Reynolds noted.
"In theory, if a case has merit it should result in a sanction. And if it doesn't, it should result in a dismissal," she said.
|Types of sanctions
Over the 10-year period, suspensions have been the most common form of sanction that attorneys face for misconduct.
Reynolds said that grievance committees can tailor suspensions to fit many situations. An attorney could be fully suspended, or suspended and then placed on probation. Suspensions can also be fully probated, she noted.
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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 2Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 3Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 4Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 5'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
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