Law students in Fort Worth will have a front-row seat to one of the most-watched Texas appellate oral arguments of the year, which has drawn public interest around the nation and cohesive scorn from advocacy groups of attorneys on both sides of the bar.

The Texas Supreme Court travels across the Lone Star State from time to time for arguments, and on Thursday, justices will drop in at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth to hear two cases. It's quite special for law students, expected to pack a 240-room auditorium plus additional overflow classrooms, to sit in on one of those arguments.

It's as good an opportunity as you get to show law students how high-level concepts in the legal profession come into play in the real world, said A&M Law Dean Bobby Ahdieh.

"We want these cutting edge legal issues. We want the law school to be in the middle of that," he said.

The case, Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products, involves issues that are sacrosanct for lawyers everywhere: the right to a fair, impartial jury trial, intertwined with the duty to zealously represent a client.

Here, Brewer Attorneys & Counselors partner William "Bill" Brewer III of Dallas and New York conducted a pretrial public opinion survey while representing a defendant. Although he maintains the survey was fair and balanced, his opponents characterize it as a "push poll" that tainted a potential jury pool.

Opponents unite against Brewer

Another closely watched aspect for argument observers: the national coverage. The case has garnered mentions in publications like The Washington Post, since Brewer himself has separately been embroiled in a high-profile leadership spat with the National Rifle Association.

Irrespective of Brewer's personal notoriety, the case is closely watched by the American Board of Trial Advocates, that group's Texas chapter, the Texas Association of Defense Counsel and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. These groups often disagree about legislation and other legal issues. But in a rare move, they've united to oppose Brewer. As amicus parties, they'll get five minutes at the oral argument to explain why.

"The right to a fair and impartial jury means a lot more than just seating 12 people in a wooden box," said Brian Lauten of Dallas, who represents the legal associations. "It means there truly are 12 people who are disinterested, who can fairly and reasonably decide the disputed facts without any preconceived biases or misinformation about the case, before it starts. The conduct of Bill Brewer is a direct threat to that."

Big-picture questions

The dispute involves a trial court's $177,000 in sanctions against Brewer's firm, who represented a defendant in a multimillion-dollar products liability and wrongful death case related to steel tubing that exploded and caused a fire, according to the Seventh Court of Appeals opinion in the case. Brewer's firm hired vendors to do a telephone poll of 300 Lubbock homeowners about gas plumbing. Brewer maintained the poll was balanced, and not meant to influence public opinion. But his opponents claimed the telephone survey was meant to intimidate witnesses, contaminate the jury pool and delay the trial date.

Both sides claim the case raises big issues for the wider legal profession.

Brewer argues the case questions whether attorneys should fear sanctions for pretrial surveys, mock trials or jury focus groups which they use to zealously represent their clients. Brewer added that trial courts shouldn't have inherent authority to sanction a lawyer unless they have evidence of bad faith conduct, which wasn't present here.

On the other hand, the appellees argued that trial courts have inherent authority to sanction conduct that harms the judicial system and the right to a fair, impartial jury trial.

"If Texas doesn't police this kind of conduct, we are going to be the laughing stock of the nation. There are a lot of eyes across the country that are going to be focused on that Supreme Court argument."said appellees' attorney Ted B. Lyon, of Ted B. Lyon & Associates in Mesquite. "If an opinion is written that says this kind of conduct is acceptable, then it's not good for our justice system–either side."

Vinson & Elkins partner George Kryder III, who represents Brewer, didn't return a call seeking comment.