Claim that Galveston Bugged Attorney-Client Meeting Rooms Survives Appellate Review
"Installation of listening devices in the county jail in areas where attorneys are to speak confidentially with their clients could be considered a violation of the judges' duty to ensure that appointed attorneys meet their ethical obligations to their clients," said the opinion in Galveston County v. Quiroga.
January 07, 2020 at 04:00 PM
4 minute read
An appellate court in Houston on Tuesday allowed a claim to proceed by a former court administrator, who alleged that Galveston County had "bugged" attorney-client meeting rooms at the local jail.
Rejecting the county's argument that jail recordings do not violate the law, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff Bonnie Quiroga had a valid claim under the Texas Whistleblowers Act when she alleged that County Judge Mark Henry fired her for reporting on the jail recordings.
Quiroga's lawsuit said the conduct violated a Texas law requiring judges to ensure appointed criminal-defense lawyers ethically perform their duties to clients. The opinion noted lawyers have an ethical duty to maintain confidentiality with their clients.
"Installation of listening devices in the county jail in areas where attorneys are to speak confidentially with their clients could be considered a violation of the judges' duty to ensure that appointed attorneys meet their ethical obligations to their clients," said the opinion by Justice Jerry Zimmerer, joined by Justices Ken Wise and Charles Spain. "It was reasonable for Quiroga to believe in her experience that such installation of the recording devices violated the law."
Quiroga worked for Galveston County for 30 years and was director of justice administration for the past 14 years, Texas Lawyer reported. But in July 2014, Henry "summarily fired" Quiroga, who reported the alleged bugged jail.
The county vehemently denies that it was recording attorney-client meetings in the jail, noted the defendants' attorney, David Minces, owner of Minces PLLC in Bellaire.
"I think, ultimately, the county will win that claim at trial," said Minces, noting it's Quiroga's only claim to survive to trial. "The county is in a much better position than they were beforehand."
Although the Fourteenth Court allowed her jail-recordings claim to survive, it dismissed other claims in Quiroga's lawsuit. For example, she had also alleged that another county employee illegally revealed one vendor's bid to a competing vender, allowing that second vendor to undercut the first bid. Those actions amounted to the crime of misuse of official information, Quiroga had alleged.
That whistleblower claim failed because Quiroga didn't correctly report that allegation, the court ruled. The county argued she had reported it to a county judge, Henry, but should have instead taken the information to a person who was authorized to enforce the law or to investigate and prosecute a crime. It was unreasonable for Quiroga to think Henry was the proper person, said the opinion.
Another claim the court dismissed alleged that Henry and the Galveston County Commissioner's court had acted outside their authority when firing Quiroga.
The plaintiff had argued that only the area's trial judges had authorization to fire her. She had sought damages, but the Fourteenth Court ruled that the county would have immunity to the damages claim. Quiroga might still be able to pursue the claim against the individual defendants, but that question was not included in the appeal, noted the opinion.
In separate litigation in the past, Henry v. Cox, a district judge in Galveston County sued Henry over Quiroga's filing. That case went to the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled in 2017 that a trial court couldn't order Henry to reinstate Quiroga at a specific salary, and that district judges would have authority to determine if the salary was reasonable.
Quiroga's attorney, Galveston solo practitioner Mark Stevens, said he's surprised that the Fourteenth Court opinion didn't mention Henry v. Cox.
"I'm concerned this opinion may embolden some commissioners courts who arbitrarily dismiss or otherwise—in an administrative way—mistreat judicial employees," said Stevens. "If that's the case, then the commissioners court would have a power over the judiciary, which they've never had before—and cannot have—under the Constitution's separation-of-powers provision."
|Read the ruling:
|Related stories:
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 AllHomegrown Texas Law Firms Expanded Outside the Lone Star State in 2024 As Out-of-State Firms Moved In
5 minute readEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': Big Law Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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