In a case that makes it clear that Texas judges are permitted to testify in attorney discipline cases, the Texas Supreme Court decided Friday that it was wrong for an appellate court to overturn an attorney's disbarment because of a judge's testimony.

In the case, Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Cantu, McAllen attorney Mark Cantu was disbarred, but an appellate court reversed because in the trial a federal bankruptcy judge had testified about overseeing Cantu's personal bankruptcy proceedings. The high court overruled that decision, however, and sent it back to McAllen's Thirteenth Court of Appeals.

"It is pretty rare for a judge to testify in a disciplinary case. Not unheard of, of course, but not very common," said an email by Claire Reynolds, spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which represents the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.

Cantu, who denies violating disciplinary rules, said he thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong.

"Hopefully the court of appeals will listen to our legal arguments, and this nightmare will be over for me and my family," said Cantu. "I'm really a good guy."

Beck Redden partner David Gunn of Houston, who represented Cantu, declined to comment.

According to the per curiam opinion, Cantu's conduct in his bankruptcy brought the disciplinary action, which was reported by Judge Marvin Isgur, who had denied Cantu a debt discharge because of the attorney's misconduct. In a 72-page opinion that explained his ruling, the judge also decided that his ethical obligations required him to report Cantu to the State Bar of Texas.

In the resulting disciplinary case, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline maintained that Cantu broke a disciplinary rule that prohibits attorneys from taking positions that increase the costs or burdens of the case, or delay the resolution of the case. It alleged Cantu violated other rules that prohibit lawyers from knowingly making false statements to courts, or knowingly entering false evidence. Among other things, the commission also claimed Cantu violated a rule that prohibits attorneys from knowingly disobeying a standing rule or ruling by a court.

At a jury trial, Isgur testified as a fact witness at great length about Cantu's conduct.

Cantu objected to the judge's testimony, and also to admission of a redacted copy of Isgur's opinion in the underlying bankruptcy case. Isgur's testimony was damaging to Cantu and included statements that, among other things, Cantu gave false oaths in court, improperly concealed and transferred assets, refused to comply with court orders, and withheld information from the trustee.

The jury found that Cantu violated all but one of the disciplinary rules that were alleged in the lawsuit. And the judge in the ethics case found that disbarment was the proper sanction.

But on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that allowing Isgur's testimony was reversible error. That decision was based on a 1991 Texas Supreme Court case, Joachim v. Chambers, which disapproved of the admission of expert testimony by a judge in a legal-malpractice case.

But the latest adjudicators found Joachim wasn't meant as a broad and general rule against courtroom testimony by judges.

"To impose such a rule in attorney-disciplinary cases would be particularly ill-advised," the per curiam opinion found. "In this case, as in others, the judge is the complainant who filed the grievance against the lawyer. Disallowing testimony from judges in such cases would place judge-initiated grievances at an artificial disadvantage, relative to other grievances in which the complainant may freely testify."

The high court also found there was no error in allowing the bankruptcy proceeding opinion to be admitted as evidence in the disciplinary case.

Cantu, who didn't return a call seeking comment, earned his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1985 and was licensed in Texas in 1986. Before his 2016 disbarment, he was practicing personal injury litigation at the Law Office of Mark A. Cantu in McAllen.

Cantu also has a history of discipline. In 2000, he was suspended from practicing law for two weeks, followed by six months of probation. In 2002, he was suspended for three months, followed by three months of probation. He also received a fully probated suspension from July 2014 to September 2015.

Read the opinion: