A Houston personal injury firm on Thursday lost its arguments that free-speech protections should dismiss claims by a medical center that alleges the firm stiffed it on bills for care to the firm's clients.

Houston's First Court of Appeals ruled in The Pinkerton Law Firm v. University Cancer Center that the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which quickly dismisses lawsuits based on First Amendment rights, would not apply to the lawsuit.

The opinion makes it clear that the act's commercial-speech exception applies to lawyers and firms who contract with experts or other service providers to help clients.

"The business of selling legal services, and the business of buying or selling other goods or services are not mutually exclusive activities," the opinion said. "Law firms, as a matter of course, retain experts and other professionals from a variety of sources and disciplines to assist them in developing their clients' cases."

The facts of the dispute span back to 2010 when the BP Products North America Inc. refinery in Texas City released benzene and exposed more than 50,000 people, according to the opinion by Justice Gordon Goodman, joined by Justices Russell Lloyd and Sarah Beth Landau.

The Pinkerton Law Firm represented hundreds of people in personal injury lawsuits against BP, according to the court's recitation of case facts. It chose the University Cancer Center for testing and screening services for its clients, and orally agreed to pay a $40 deposit and issue a letter of protection for each client. Between Aug. 25 and Oct. 5, 2010, the center examined nearly 1,900 clients and sent the results to Pinkerton, the opinion noted.

In the letter of protection, attorney Chad Pinkerton stated the cancer center would receive payment for its services when the litigation resolved through settlement or a jury verdict.

Later, the BP litigation reached a confidential settlement for 476 clients.

The center alleged the law firm paid some money, but not the full amount promised. In 2018, it sued the firm for breach of contract and quantum meruit.

In the trial court, Pinkerton claimed the TCPA bars the lawsuit, but the court denied the motion to dismiss. The firm argued on appeal that the act applied to the center's claims. It argued the agreements and other communications with the center pertained to protected conduct: the judicial proceedings against BP and to public health concerns from the benzene release.

On the other side, the center argued that Pinkerton's speech was commercial, and exempted from the TCPA.

Meanwhile, the firm countered that its business was selling legal services, which it did not sell to the center.

The First Court disagreed. It found Pinkerton had communicated with the center to obtain services, and the commercial-speech exemption applied.

Because the court denied Pinkerton's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit early, it opens the door for discovery to proceed in the trial court.

Pinkerton, who represented his firm, didn't immediately return a call or email seeking comment. Neither did New Braunfels solo practitioner Lamar Treadwell, who represents the cancer center.

Read the opinion: