Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : D. Todd Smith Law Firm : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

It turns out that Tuesday's post about FLDS appeals coming to Austin was timely.  According to this press release and what I can gather from the Third Court of Appeals' web site, lawyers for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid filed a mandamus petition yesterday asking the court to order District Judge Barbara Walther to hold hearings at which each family would be able to respond to allegations of abuse before the children are placed in foster care in locations throughout the state.

A panel consisting of Chief Justice Law and Justices Pemberton and Waldrop will hear argument in In re Sara Steed, et al. (No. 03-08-00235-CV) on April 29 at 2:00 p.m.  The house should be packed.

Update:  The Supreme Court of Texas Blog and a commenter to this post point out that the order setting argument is addressed to the motion for temporary relief, rather than the mandamus petition itself.  It's an unusual development for an extraordinary case.

4/25/08 Update.  The oral argument has been canceled.  The court has taken no action on the mandamus petition.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Believe it or not, I'm a sucker for lawyer TV shows, in part because they're so unrealistic they make me laugh.  I'd pretty much given up on ABC's Boston Legal this season; for various reasons, I thought the show had jumped the shark.  But I couldn't help noticing Tuesday's episode entitled "The Court Supreme," in which James Spader's character, Alan Shore, argues an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a mentally challenged man facing the death penalty for raping a child.

If you have ever watched the show and have seen one of Alan's politically tinged, closing-argument rants, you can imagine what happened.  (Pssssst.  Hey Alan.  One of the first rules of appellate practice is to save the impassioned jury argument for a jury.  To that, I would add that it's generally a bad idea to insult the Justices from the lectern.)  A 10-minute video clip is available on YouTube.  It's worth watching not only as a reminder of what not to do at an appellate argument, but also for ABC's amazing casting of look-alikes for the High Nine.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The West Texas town of Eldorado is more than 200 miles from Austin.  So imagine my surprise when I realized that any appeals coming out of the drama surrounding the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints "Yearning for Zion" Ranch (which the ABA Journal describes as "what surely will be among the largest child custody cases in U.S. history") will be heard by the Third Court of Appeals, right here in the Live Music Capital of the World.

Surprisingly few Texas family law bloggers have weighed in on the FDLS matter.  I'm sure some of them were among the hundreds who volunteered to serve as court-appointed ad litems in more than 100 child removal cases the State filed in the 51st District Court (which serves Schleicher County and nearby Tom Green County, among others).  What an incredible effort.

It will be interesting to see how the appeals will be handled logistically.  Some of the attorneys involved have identified Judge Barbara Walther's decision to hear the State's evidence en masse, rather than child-by-child, as a potential ground for reversal.  I suspect the challenges arising from the sheer numbers will carry over into the appellate court to a significant degree.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)

The Tex Parte Blog is reporting that former Dallas district judge Catharina Haynes (pictured) has been confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  She joins Judge Jennifer Elrod (previously discussed here) as Baker Botts alumna recently taking seats on the court.

One can't help but notice that three of President Bush's last four Fifth Circuit appointments (see Judge Priscilla Owen) have been Texas women.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The "quiet trickle of a rumor" that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's James C. Ho (pictured) will succeed Ted Cruz as Solicitor General of Texas is true.  Attorney General Greg Abbott's press release is available here.

I have had the privilege of serving with Jim on The Appellate Advocate's editorial board for the past two years.  His credentials speak for themselves.  General Abbott has made an excellent choice.

4/11/08 Update:  Additional reports and commentary are available at the Supreme Court of Texas Blog and Above the Law.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last night, the web version of the San Antonio Express-News ran a commentary by Osler McCarthy, the Texas Supreme Court's Staff Attorney for Public Information, addressing watchdog groups' recent claims regarding alleged ethics violations and docket backlog.  McCarthy gives another view based primarily on official Court statistics, and he makes some interesting points.  Those following these stories should take into account what he says.

3/28/08 Update:  Sophisitic Miltonian Serbonian Blog and The Supreme Court of Texas Blog  provide further analysis.

3/30/08 Update:  Texas Watch spokesman Alex Winslow responds to McCarthy here.

This debate seems to have hit a dead end.  I'll follow up again only if there's something new.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A blog associated with The Dallas Morning News and KVUE-TV here in Austin have both run new stories on the Texas Supreme Court's "backlog problem."  As near as I can tell, neither has unearthed any previously unreported information, so the timing is something of a mystery.  Yesterday's blog entry refers to a Texas Watch report issued February 20, and this evening's KVUE broadcast shows some of the same footage used in the WFAA-TV story (discussed here) from February 27.  Political rehash, anyone?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last night, WFAA-TV in Dallas ran a news feature (entitled "Justice Delayed?") addressing the "backlog problem" at the Texas Supreme Court.  Investigative reporter Byron Harris took the lead, and Austin public interest group Texas Watch contributed.

The story centered around Sharon Boyd, who died of cancer shortly before the December 2006 oral argument in her failure-to-diagnose case (previously discussed here).  Rather than address the merits, the Court ultimately dismissed the health care providers' petition for review as improvidently granted.

The report also discussed the Court's 6-week "summer hiatus," the speed with which Justice Hecht and Justice Wainwright turn out opinions, and those justices' travel habits.  Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Wainwright were interviewed.

The news video, as well as an online article, are available through this link.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

As reported in The Houston Chronicle, a group of 11 plaintiffs have brought a putative class action in federal district court in Marshall seeking to have the Chapter 74 medical malpractice damage caps declared unconstitutional.  Among the plaintiffs is former Dallas Cowboy Ron Springs, who has been in a coma since late last year following surgery to remove a cyst.

The lawsuit, styled Watson et al. v. Harrison County Hospital Association et al. (Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-00081), has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Ward.  A copy of the complaint is available here.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Following up on this post, I finished reading John Grisham's The Appeal this past weekend.  As some reviews have noted, the story is more about the politics of judicial elections than the actual appellate process, which is barely mentioned at all.  I laughed out loud, though, when I read the following passage:

In Atlanta, Jared Kurtin passed the file to the firms appellate unit, the eggheads, as they were known, brilliant legal scholars who functioned poorly in normal circles and were best kept in the library.  Two partners, four associates, and four paralegals were already hard at work on the appeal when the massive transcript arrived and they had their first look at every word that was recorded at trial.  They would dissect it and find dozens of reasons for a reversal [at 103].

This reminded me of my big firm days, although no one referred to our group as "eggheads" (more like "nerds," I think).  We also didn't staff even the largest matters with two partners, four associates, and four paralegals.  At current rates, that kind of coverage would ring up about $3,000 an hour.

I didn't find the book to be as much a "bully pulpit for reform" as some, though the Author's Note does speak out in pointed opposition to judicial elections.  It's classic Grisham—David versus Goliath with political undertones, but withGoliath reversing his fortune 5 votes to 4.  The timing is interesting, but I wouldn't take it for anything more than an easy, fairly entertaining read.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

If you haven't already heard, John Grisham has a new legal thriller out.  It's called The Appeal.  Here's an excerpt from Charles Taylor's review at Bloomberg.com:

[The defendant's] next step, of course, is to appeal the verdict.  Knowing that it will take several years for the case to reach the state Supreme Court, the company decides to buy a seat.  Judges are elected in Mississippi, so they target a victim—a female justice who can be made to sound like a liberal harridan—and groom a decent, conservative young lawyer to run against her.  Then the smear campaign begins.

Sounds a little like an appellate version of The Runaway Jury, with some commentary on judicial elections thrown in.  According to USA Today's review:

More than a novel, The Appeal is an exposé of how highly organized special-interest groups, loaded with cash, can manipulate the judicial system.  It's Grisham's bully pulpit for reform.  "There's a lot of truth in this story," Grisham writes in an author's note.  "As long as private money is allowed in judicial elections we will see competing interests fight for seats on the bench."

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The following chart from the Houston Chronicle depicts how long argued cases have been pending before the Texas Supreme Court and the number of deciding opinions each of the justices wrote in Fiscal Year 2007.  Though intended to expand on recent controversies, it provides some perspective nonetheless.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court issued no opinions with this week's orders.  In other Court news, however, Chief Justice Jefferson has issued a statement expressing the Court's dismay concerning Justice Medina's indictment in Harris County in connection with the fire that destroyed his Houston-area home last summer.  Several news outlets have reported that Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal (Justice Medina's fellow Republican, who is having his own well publicized troubles these days) will move to dismiss the indictment.  The political firestorm (no pun intended) has begun.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm quite behind on posting, especially with respect to recent Texas Supreme Court goings-on.  That's to be expected this time of year, I suppose, but some personal issues have pulled me away even more than usual.  I plan to pick up the pace and perhaps refocus things a bit as we head into 2008.

Anyway, this post at the Perlmutter & Schuelke Blog reminded me that Austin has been named as the #1 blogging city for lawyers (ahead of Seattle, thank you very much Kevin O'Keefe, whose report on this story I saw first).  While I'm not one to question Austin's greatness in all things technological, Brooks Schuelke rightly asks where all of the Austin law bloggers are.  Maybe the survey criteria were geared to law blog readers rather than writers.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

According to this report from Legal Trade, the State Bar is considering a policy change that would prevent campaigning judges from participating as course directors, planning committee members, or speakers at bar-approved CLE courses.  As a regular attendee of the two major appellate CLE programs, both of which feature appellate judges as speakers, this idea seems silly.  I have never heard a judge make political remarks in this situation.  What evil is the proposed rule intended to cure?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported in the Tex Parte Blog, the race for chief justice of the Austin Court of Appeals is shaping up.  The incumbent, Chief Justice Kenneth Law (R) (pictured) recently announced his plans to seek re-election, following some speculation that he would not run again.  Former Justice Woodie Jones (D) previously announced his candidacy and is gearing up for a strong bid.

Travis County remains a Democratic stronghold, but a number of the 24 counties in the Third District are primarily Republican.  This race won't match the drama of the last election cycle, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Per How Appealing, an article entitled The Irony of Judicial Elections (abstract with link for download) will appear in the March 2008 issue of the Columbia Law Review.  The article's abstract reads as follows:

Judicial elections in the United States have undergone a dramatic transformation.  For more than a century, these state and local elections were relatively dignified, low-key affairs.  Campaigning was minimal; incumbents almost always won; few people voted or cared.  Over the past quarter century and especially the past decade, however, a rise in campaign spending, interest group involvement, and political speech has disturbed the traditional paradigm.  In the new era, as commentators have dubbed it, judicial races routinely feature intense competition, broad public participation, and high salience.

This Article takes the new era as an opportunity to advance our understanding of elective versus nonelective judiciaries.  In revisiting this classic debate, the Article aims to make three main contributions.  First, it offers an analytic taxonomy of the arguments for and against electing judges that seeks to distinguish the central normative concerns from the more contingent, empirical ones.  Second, applying this taxonomy, the Article shows how both the costs and the benefits of elective judiciaries have been enhanced by recent developments, leaving the two sides of the debate further apart than ever.

Third, the Article explores several deep ironies that emerge from this cleavage.  Underlying these ironies is a common insight:  As judicial elections achieve greater legitimacy as elections, it will tend to undermine the judiciary's distinctive role and our broader democratic processes.  There is an underappreciated tradeoff between the health of judicial elections and the health of the judiciary, the Article posits, that can help recast the controversy over the new era.

Sounds like something members of the Legislature ought to read before taking up judicial election reform again in 2009.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this post, I asked how "tort reformers" are responding to the Baylor Law Review-sponsored survey of Texas judges, which has been championed as helping to "clear the air" about the state of our court system.  In a commentary recently published in the San Antonio Express-News, Austin lawyer Lee Parsley does just that.  In addition, Texans for Lawsuit Reform has issued a press release (picked up by MSNBC) touting the Parsley article.  Parsley and TLR read the Baylor study much differently than previous commentators, contending that it actually shows a need for further lawsuit reform.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

The Baylor Law Review-sponsored survey of Texas judges regarding the need for tort reform (previously discussed here) received further press this week. In a San Antonio Express-News guest column, Houston lawyers Peter Kelly and Jeffery Nobles discussed the survey and described it as "an important step in clearing the air about the court system."  Kelly and Nobles concluded:

Most of the political myths that gave birth to the conventional wisdom about runaway juries have now been exposed as urban legends, and the Baylor survey of anonymous judges from around the state disputes what openly partisan politicians have said in every political campaign for the past 20 years.  When it comes to jury trials, Texans should ignore the politicians and consultants and heed the data.

The results of this survey were released back in August.  How do the "tort reformers" respond?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a particularly interesting and (I think) important case today.  In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. (06-989), the Court will decide whether contracting parties may agree to expand the grounds for vacating arbitration awards beyond those recognized under the Federal Arbitration Act.  The Fifth Circuit and others have said yes—see Gateway Techs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 64 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 1995)—but the Ninth Circuit disagreed.  The merits briefs, amicus briefs, and a transcript of the argument are available here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

According to the Tex Parte Blog, Tenth Court of Appeals Justice Bill Vance (pictured) has announced that he will not seek a fourth term in 2008.  Justice Vance apparently dismissed any notion that his ongoing conflict with with Chief Justice Tom Gray played any part in his decision.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I don't practice criminal appellate law, and I don't ordinarily follow the the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but even I notice when the CCA makes front-page news for the wrong reasons.

In case you haven't heard, the media is lambasting the CCA (more specifically, Presiding Judge Sharon Keller) for refusing to keep the clerk's office open past 5:00 to accept a last-minute filing in a death penalty appeal.  Earlier the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a Kentucky case challenging lethal injections as cruel and unusual punishment, and Texas death row inmate Michael Richard was scheduled to die by lethal injection that evening.  The media coverage provides the details, but because of Presiding Judge Keller's decision, the Richard execution went forward without the possibility of court intervention on potentially meritorious grounds.

The Texas Supreme Court doesn't make life-or-death decisions, and it is receiving its share of negative press these days.  But one of the things that court does right is allow electronic or after-hours submissions (with an advance call to the clerk's office, as apparently occurred in the Richard case) to get emergencies in front of the Court when its decisions can still make a difference.  One would think that if a civil court can accommodate litigants when money is the only thing at stake, a criminal court could do the same in matters of life and death.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Texarkana Gazette has published this nice article on the 100th anniversary of the Sixth Court of Appeals.  The article quotes Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss III as saying that the intermediate appellate courts "are the final deciders of well above 90 percent of [all] cases."  The Texas Supreme Court gets most of the press coverage, but we need to pause and remind ourselves that it's not the only forum in which justice is meted out.  Though often overlooked, the 14 intermediate courts play a critical role.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Tex Parte Blog is reporting that the Senate has confirmed 190th District Court Judge Jennifer Elrod's nominationto the Fifth Circuit (discussed previously here).  As the post points out, there are some interesting contrasts between Elrod's confirmation process and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the past couple of weeks, I have been contacted by two different lawyers about their clients' respective appeals, both of which appear to be on a collision course with the Texas Supreme Court.  Sounds promising, right?  Not so fast.

Rather than calling to discuss hiring me to handle their matters, both lawyers wanted me to recommend someone "politically connected" (i.e., someone with a firm that is a big financial contributor to the individual justices' electoral campaigns) to take over the proceedings.

I don't blame these folks for calling.  They are merely doing what they think is in their clients' best interest.  But what does this say about lawyers' confidence—not to mention the public's—in our elected judiciary?  It's more important to hire someone who has given large sums to political campaigns than someone qualified to do the job (and, in my case, as a sole practitioner with much lower overhead than the "politically connected" firms, do it at a considerably more favorable rate).

Chief Justice Jefferson has tried to pick up the mantle of judicial selection reform and carry on the fight started by his immediate predecessors.  The legislature keeps saying no.  Don't give up, Chief.  Don't give up.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Appellate geeks like me are already interested in In re Columbia Medical Center, Subsidiary, L.P.  (No. 06-0416), a case in which the Texas Supreme Court will re-examine whether a trial court's decision to grant a new trial is reviewable by mandamus.  (Oral argument is set for September 27.)  But the real parties in interest have filed a recusal motion that will lift more than a few eyebrows.  Texas Lawyer provides the details here.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court has added links to its calendar (in Microsoft Word and PDF form) as a new feature on the Court's web site.  Advocates and others now have ready access to the Court's schedule through August 2008, including dates for oral argument, conference, orders, and holidays.

Thanks to Elana Einhorn for the tip.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I haven't intended to jump on any tort reform bandwagon this week, but I saw another article of interest to litigators on both sides of the docket.  (Hat tip to Trial Ad Notes.)  In Texas Plaintiffs Practice in the Age of Tort Reform:  Survival of the Fittest—It's Even More True Now, the authors overview the politics of tort reform, address the business of representing plaintiffs, and discuss key changes in plaintiffs' practice in recent years.  The article, part of a symposium on plaintiffs' practice published by the New York Law School Law Review, concludes that tort reform has forced difficult economic choices on Texas plaintiffs' lawyers and threatens access to legal remedies for some clients with legitimate claims.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this post, the Permutter and Schuelke Blog reports on a new article in the Baylor Law Review following a two-year survey of Texas district judges' views on the "litigation crisis."  Of the 78 percent of all Texas district judges responding, more than 80 percent do not think further tort reform is necessary.  Interestingly, more respondents thought that juries had awarded damages that were too low rather than too high.

UPDATE:  Click on the "comments" link for electronic access to the article, courtesy of Brooks Schuelke and the Baylor Law Review.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Directorship magazine has put out a defense-oriented guide ranking the states by current and future liability risks in light of political, legislative, and judicial dynamics.  According to the guide (which has backing from the American Justice Partnership), Texas ranks 18th, but is likely to move up if "fairness and predictability return to the Judicial Hellholes in the Rio Grande Valley and the Gulf Coast."

Hat tip to PointofLaw.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Austin American-Statesman is reporting the death of former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hill, the only Texan to have served in that capacity, as attorney general, and as secretary of state.  Chief Justice Hill was a giant in Texas jurisprudence and continued working on causes he believed in—most recently, judicial election reform—to the end.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The following comes from Jerry Bullard of Adams, Lynch & Loftin, P.C. in Bedford, who co-chairs the State Bar Appellate Section's Bench-Bar Liaison Committee:

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

As many of you know, the final days of a legislative session are often characterized by political posturing and gamesmanship that ultimately lead to the demise of key pieces of legislation.  We saw it in 2005 when a parliamentary maneuver killed the judicial pay raise bill in the waning hours of the regular session (of course, the bill ultimately passed in a subsequent special session).  Well, this session appears to be no exception as a House member raised a point of order that effectively killed SB 1204.  Also, critical deadlines passed this week without the House or Senate acting on many of the other bills that I have been tracking, thereby virtually ending any chance of passage this session.  The following is a status of [certain] bills that have appeared on my updates this session:

SB 1204 - Court Reorganization/Complex Courts

• Bill Analysis:  Senate Research Center
• Status:  On May 21, 2007, a point of order was raised on the House floor and was sustained.
• Summary:  Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D- Houston), a solo practitioner, stopped the House's debate of CSSB 1204 with a point of order.  Thompson complained that the analysis of S.B. 1204 did not conform to the changes that the House Judiciary Committee had made in the bill.

SB 1167 - Appeals Under Federal Arbitration Act

• Bill Analysis:  Senate Research Center
• Status:  On May 21, 2007, SB 1167 was placed on the Houses General State Calendar.
• Summary:  SB 1167 appears to have died as the House deadline to consider Senate bills has passed.  SB 1167 would have authorized an interlocutory appeal of a court order denying a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The law currently requires a party to file a petition for writ of mandamus to seek review of orders denying motions to compel under the FAA while similar orders under the Texas General Arbitration Act are subject to interlocutory appeal.  This bill attempted to eliminate confusion relating to the appeal of such orders.

HB 3095 - Disposition of Appeals

• Status:  Pending in the House Judiciary Committee as of May 7, 2007.
• Summary:  HB 3095 has died in committee.  The bill's author, Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), told the House Judiciary Committee that HB 3095 was filed because certain appellate courts were dragging their feet on certain rulings, and he wanted to start a conversation about speeding up the disposition of appeals.  Van Arsdale expressed a desire to see the issue studied between sessions.

HJR 89 - Board Certification for Appellate Justices and District Judges/Increases in Age and Experience Requirements for District Judges

• Status:  Pending in the House Judiciary Committee as of April 16, 2007.
• Summary:  HJR 89 has died in committee.  It is my understanding that the bill was filed in order to increase the qualifications of Texas judges.  Supporters of the bill believed it would be easier to pass than a merit selection bill.

SB 806 - Judicial Appointment/Retention& SJR 32 - Constitutional Amendment for Judicial Appointment/Retention

• Status:  Referred to the Senate Jurisprudence Committee on March 7, 2007.
• Summary:  SB 806 and SJR 32, which were authored by Sen. Duncan, never got off the ground and died in committee without a hearing.  This legislation related to the appointment of certain judicial offices and a nonpartisan election for the retention or rejection of a person appointed to those offices.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Per the Austin Bar Association's E-Bulletin, the ABA Civil Litigation Section will host a debate on SB 1204 at noon on Tuesday, April 10, between Lee Parsley (representing Texans for Lawsuit Reform, whose position paper is available here) and Jay Harvey (President of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, whose position paper is available here).  This one should be interesting.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In follow-up to this post, the Senate State Affairs Committee has scheduled another hearing on SB 1204 for April 2 at 9:00 a.m.  In addition, the witness list from this past Monday's hearing and the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note are available.

UPDATE:  Per a revised notice, SB 1204 has been removed from Monday's Senate State Affairs Committee agenda.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by Howard Bashman at How Appealing:

President Bush has nominated Jennifer Walker Elrod to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:  Currently, Elrod serves as a state district judge in Houston.  She has been nominated to fill the vacancy created when Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham took senior status.  A brief biography of Elrod can be accessed here (scroll down).

Update: The official notice from the White House is now available at this link.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

I wasn't able to attend yesterday'shearing on SB 1204, but the debate was apparently lively.  According to this morning's report in the Austin American-Statesman, legislators, trial lawyers, and judges bristled at the bill's scope during more than four hours of testimony before the Senate State Affairs Committee.  Much of the criticism focused on the proposal to adopt special rules and procedures for "complex cases," which some fear would disenfranchise local judges implicitly deemed incapable of adjudicating such matters.

The Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Texas Association of Defense Counsel don't agree on much, but both organizations oppose SB 1204. The bill seems to be losing momentum.

UPDATE:  Video of this hearing is now available through the Senate RealMedia site.  It is split into Part I andPart II(RealPlayer required).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Senate State Affairs Committee will hear SB 1204, the court reorganization bill previously discussed here and here, on Monday, March 26, at 9:00 a.m.  The proceedings will be webcast on the Senate's web site through this link.  The bill analysis was filed today and is available here.

Senator Kirk Watson e-mailed members of the Austin Bar Association today encouraging them to participate in the debate on this bill and welcoming them to contact him or his staff with feedback.  According to Senator Watson's message, those attending the hearing maybe allowed to testify orally or in writing.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Austin American-Statesman reports that the sponsors have pulled the House and Senate bills that would have allowed Justice Nathan Hecht to seek compensation for $340,000 in attorney's fees he incurred defending against state ethics charges.  Apparently, the sponsors were no longer willing to support the cause once they learned that Justice Hecht had raised enough money to pay the bill through private contributions.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Before last Friday's deadline, Representative Dan Gattis filed House Joint Resolution 89, which addresses qualifications of Texas appellate justices (and district judges).  In addition to age and practice experience requirements, HJR 89 would require board certification in at least one practice area recognized by the State Bar.  Justices sitting on November 6, 2007 (the proposed date for submitting the measure to voters for the necessary constitutional amendment) would be grandfathered in.  The measure is currently pending before the House Judiciary Committee.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While trolling through the Texas Legislature's web site over the weekend, Jerry Bullard, Co-Chair of the State Bar Appellate Section's Bench-Bar Liaison Committee, discovered an interesting bill that he (and I) originally overlooked.  With Jerry's permission, I am posting excerpts from a message he sent his colleagues about the bill, House Bill 3095.

HB 3095, authored by Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), relates to the periods for disposing of certain actions and petitions by appellate courts in this state.  As its caption suggests, the bill seeks to establish deadlines for the appellate courts to dispose of all cases.  Specifically, HB 3095 would . . . [r]equire the Supreme Court . . . to rule on a regular cause not later than the first anniversary of the date the court agreed to grant review of the cause and grant or deny a petition not later than the expiration of the six-month period after the date the petition was filed.

For Supreme Court proceedings, a regular cause is defined as:  1) a case in which four (4) or more justices decide that a petition should be reviewed; 2) a direct appeal that the Court has agreed to review; or, 3) a certified question that the Court has agreed to review.

A petition means:  1) a petition for review; 2) a petition for writ of mandamus; or, 3) a petition for writ of habeas corpus, prohibition, or injunction.

[HB 3095 would also] [r]equire the intermediate appellate courts to rule or otherwise dispose of an appellate case not later than the expiration of the 18-month period after the date the case was filed with the court.  The term appellate case appears to encompass all cases filed in the courts of appeals.

[Jerry's] initial reaction to HB 3095 is to question whether the deadlines are realistic given the caseload and IOPs in some of the larger intermediate courts, the Supreme Court and the CCA, and whether the bill has the backing to pass.  [Jerry] suspect[s] we'll learn the answer to both questions as the process moves forward.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

More than once, I heard the 78th Legislature's now-infamous House Bill 4 described as "the Full Employment Act for appellate lawyers."  Considering how inaccurate that forecast was, I am approaching Senate Bill 1204, the latest proposed overhaul to the civil justice system (originally mentioned here), with some trepidation.

SB 1204 focuses largely on reforming our state's judicial structure and practice at the trial-court level, primarily by converting Texas's statutory county courts into more than 40 new district courts.  This change would take effect on January 1, 2011, with most of these offices standing for election in 2010.  Another major change would be the creation of a "complex case" judicial panel that would operate much like the multidistrict litigation panels created in 2003.

From an appellate lawyer's perspective, other provisions are potentially significant.  For example, the bill would allow mandamus to the supreme court to challenge a complex case panel's determination that a matter is not in fact "complex."  The bill would also authorize permissive appeals from certain interlocutory orders in complex and multidistrict cases.

Of broader interest, the bill would significantly alter Texas Government Code § 22.001, the statute defining the supreme court's jurisdiction, by deleting all references to specific types of cases (i.e., "dissent" or "conflict" jurisdiction) and recognizing what is now subpart (6) (jurisprudential importance) as defining the supreme court's jurisdictional reach.  This amendment would settle the debate about whether the supreme court must accept certain types of cases by providing true discretionary jurisdiction subject to one exception:  the supreme court "shall grant a petition for review in a case in which a court of appeals has declared void a statute of the state."

Another noteworthy feature of SB 1204 is that it would expressly grant "the supreme court [power to] act on a petition for review when the court deems it expedient."  This provision's purpose is not apparent.  Except for motions for rehearing of causes, the supreme court already works on its own timetable.

We will be hearing and reading a lot about SB 1204 over the next couple of months.  Some of the folks who participated in drafting this bill think it stands a fairly good chance of passage.  From what I understand, an initial hearing on the bill has been set for March19, 2006.  No doubt, this is the beginning of an interesting debate.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This morning's Austin American-Statesman reports that "the Legislature is considering two bills [House Bill 2725 and Senate Bill 1301] that would erase a $340,000 legal debt owed by Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht" because "he challenged an ethics rebuke that stemmed from his support of friend Harriet Miers' 2005 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court."

In fairness, the bills would allow all judges who successfully challenge ethics charges from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to recover legal fees from the State.  However, the legislation would apply to successful challenges launched since January 2006, including Justice Hecht's.

Update:  The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has some very interesting coverage here.

Another Update:  Through the Associated Press, Law.com has picked up the story here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senator Robert Duncan has filed Senate Bill 1204, which would effect massive changes in the Texas judicial system.  The bill is quite lengthy and warrants close study.  Texans for Lawsuit Reform has issued a press release touting the bill.  Representative Dan Gattis has filed an identical companion bill, House Bill 2906.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

According to this week's State Bar Friday Update, Representative Myra Crownover has filed two companion bills (House Bill 1908 and House Joint Resolution 78) to the Senate judicial selection legislation mentioned here.  Both have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but have not been set for hearing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The State Bar's Friday Update reports that Senator Robert Duncan has filed two judicial selection bills.  The first, Senate Bill 806, allows for appointment of certain judicial offices and nonpartisan retention elections.  The second, Senate Joint Resolution 32, proposes a related constitutional amendment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chief Justice Jefferson's State of the Judiciary address has been posted at the Texas Supreme Court's web site.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I can't wait to see what Texas Lawyer has to say about Chief Justice Jefferson's State of the Judiciary address.  I'm sure there will be some interesting quotes about how the Chief has gone over to the dark side or has seen the light, depending on where the interviewee stands on what now passes for tort reform.

I am skeptical of any cause advanced by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the same happy people who brought you House Bill 4 two sessions ago.  The face of civil litigation has changed tremendously since then.  Most litigators I know would say that the change has not been for the better.

As I read Chief Justice Je