JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Judge Sandra Plaster (Justice of the Peace, Canton, Van Zandt County)
On August 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Sandra Plaster, justice of the peace, Precinct 2, Canton, Van Zandt County.
The commission found that Justice Plaster abused her office when she made repeated efforts to enlist law enforcement officers to harass trucks bringing workers and equipment to the site of a solar farm under construction adjacent to property owned by her family. According to the commission, beginning in February 2019, Judge Plaster made personal visits and phone calls to several different officers of the Department of Public Safety to enlist their help in stopping vehicles, which she alleged were speeding, overweight or simply tearing up public roads.
When the officers said they were not in a position to measure the weight of the vehicles, Judge Plaster insisted that they be stopped because they were “Mexicans” and that “none of them had driver’s licenses, since they are Mexican.”
The commission issued both a warning to Plaster and a public reprimand for having violated Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct for using the prestige of her office to advance her personal interests. The commission also concluded that her racially insensitive comments about people of Mexican descent in her communications with law enforcement officers demonstrated an extra-judicial activity that “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.”
The commission ordered Judge Plaster to undergo two hours of training on the prestige of judicial office, as well as bias and racial sensitivity.
Wayne A. Christian (Judge, County Court at Law, Bexar County)
On August 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Wayne A. Christian, judge of County Court at Law No. 6, San Antonio, Bexar County.
The public admonishment was the result of probation revocation proceeding against a drug offender who had failed several drug tests. Over the objection of defense counsel, Judge Christian refused to allow defense testimony that the probationer had been taking diet pills, and not methamphetamine as had been alleged.
Judge Christian’s denial of the right to be heard was cited on appeal as improper and unlawful, and response Judge Christian changed the procedures in his courtroom.
The commission concluded that his use of what had been determined as “informal” revocation proceedings were inappropriate and deserving of public admonishment as a violation of Canon 2A and Canon 3(B)8 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Sara Jane Del Carmen (Municipal Judge, Colleyville and Keller)
On August 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Sara Jane Del Carmen, municipal judge of Colleyville and Keller, Tarrant County.
Judge Keller was admonished by the commission for failing to surrender records to an attorney representing a wheelchair-bound defendant, Matthew Stumm, in an illegal parking case. In a series of problematic communications from Del Carmen’s court, Stumm’s appearances were cancelled or delayed. As a result, a parking ticket issued to Stumm in February 2017 went unresolved for two years, resulting in an arrest warrant being issued for his failure to appear.
Although the ticket itself was ultimately dismissed, Stumm pleaded “no contest” to the “failure to appear” and paid a fine, which he subsequently decided to challenge. But when the records of his case were requested, Del Carmen’s court repeatedly refused to release them, challenging the validity of his representation.
The commission concluded that Del Carmen’s court demonstrated a bias in favor of law enforcement and had engaged in unethical ex parte communications as part of her failure to properly recognize and cooperate with Stumm’s counsel. The commission decided to publicly admonish her and require four hours of additional judicial training, including three hours dedicated to court administration and an hour dedicated to the requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul Foley (Justice of the Peace, Rains County)
On August 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Paul Foley, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Place 1, Emory, Rains County.
Foley was cited by the commission for a telephone call made to Amanda White, a middle school teacher, demanding to know the whereabouts of a horse bequeathed to White’s aunt from a settled estate. When White said she was teaching and wasn’t in a position to discuss the matter, Judge Foley responded that he knew where she was, rudely insisting that she discuss the matter, anyway, even though no case concerning the matter was pending in his court.
In response to White’s complaint to the commission, Foley said he had raised his voice to impress upon White the seriousness of his request.
The commission ruled that Foley should be publicly admonished both for violations of Canon 2B, which prohibits lending the prestige of a judicial office for the personal benefit of himself or others, and for failing to display a judicial demeanor in his conversation with Amanda White.
The commission also ordered that he undergo two hours of judicial education pertaining to the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Judge Jeanine Howard (Judge, Criminal Court No. 6, Dallas County)
On August 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Jeanine Howard, judge of Criminal District Court No. 6, Dallas, Dallas County.
The Commission publicly reprimanded Judge Howard for a high-publicized incident during which she singled out, during an open political forum in February 2018, a victim of domestic violence who had appeared in her court and who was openly supporting the judge’s opponent.
During the meeting Judge Howard was recorded on video identifying her by name and stating: “Her boyfriend went to prison for assaulting her several times.”
The commission concluded that Judge Howard should be admonished for “identifying and speaking publicly about a domestic violence victim during and political forum, and the resultant media attention regarding her comments, which constitute willful or persistent conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary and the administration of justice.”
Judge Jose “Joey” Contreras (Judge, 187th Criminal District Court, Bexar County)
On September 8, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition to Jose “Joey” Contreras, former judge of the 187th Criminal District Court, San Antonio, Bexar County.
The admonishment concerned a 2018 incident during a murder trial in Judge Contreras’ courtroom. The defendant’s attorneys reported that their client had received an unsigned letter alleging that the attorneys were unqualified to represent him. They said the address on the envelope appeared to be in the handwriting of an attorney they were both acquainted with.
During the trial and after the trial, Judge Contreras summoned the attorney accused of writing the letter to his court, first to investigate the matter, then to determine whether the attorney had, in fact, written the letter. In neither case, the commission decided, did he inform the attorney about the reason for his summons, and in neither case did the judge allow the attorney sufficient opportunity to defend herself from the accusation.
The commission concluded that Contreras has acted beyond his judicial role in undertaking the investigation, questioning the accused attorney in open court, and failing to give her proper notice of the reasons she was being summoned to his court.
He has filed an appeal of the final sanction.
Judge Billy Williams (Justice of the Peace, San Augustine County)
On September 8, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Billy Williams, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, San Augustine, San Augustine County.
Judge Williams was driving past the home of Matthew Cannon at what Cannon believed to be an excessive speed for the residential neighborhood. When Judge Williams stopped to engage Cannon, he was brandishing a pistol against his steering wheel in violation of open carry law.
Judge Williams returned to Cannon’s home 10 minutes later and, while again brandishing the pistol in violation of open carry laws, argued with Cannon. When Cannon asked Williams if he was “a cop,” Williams said he was. Later, explaining that he was a judge.
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that Williams, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas, should be publicly reprimanded for casting public discredit upon the judiciary and failing to comply with the law by displaying a handgun in a manner contrary to Texas law, in violation of Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution and Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Lee Harper Wilson (County Criminal Court at Law, Harris County)
On September 8, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Lee Harper Wilson, judge of Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 10, Houston, Harris County.
Judge Wilson was accused of improper judicial conduct during a February 2019 incident involving a paralegal whom he admonished in open court for sitting inside the bar of his courtroom. Judge Wilson was accused by paralegal Sarai Garza of stepping down from the bench and grabbing her by the arm during the incident, which was witnessed by a number of individuals in the courtroom at the time. The incident was reported to the Houston police, and it was investigated for potential prosecution, but a Harris County grand jury later declined to indict him.
Judge Wilson was ordered to undergo two hours of harassment education in addition to his required continuing judicial education.
He has filed an appeal of the final sanction.
DISBARMENT
Cynthia Gail Brown (Palm Coast, Florida)
On September 15, 2020, Cynthia Gail Brown [#24026968], 56, of Palm Coast, Florida, received a judgment of disbarment related to three disciplinary cases. An evidentiary panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that in the first case, Brown was hired by a client, on or about June 28, 2016, to represent her in a modification of her child custody orders. The client paid Brown an advanced fee of $1,600 for the representation. On September 19, 2016, Brown was administratively suspended from the practice of law.
Between June and September 2016, Brown filed no pleadings on the client’s behalf to initiate the modification.
Further, Brown failed to notify the client of her suspension and ceased all communication with the client after a couple of months. When the client discovered that Brown had been suspended and abandoned her law practice, she requested a refund. Brown failed to respond to the request and did not refund any unearned fees. In a second case, Brown was hired by a client in January 2016 to represent her in a stepparent adoption. The client paid Brown an advanced fee of $3,900 for legal fees, filing fees, and a home study. Although Brown obtained the biological mother’s written relinquishment of parental rights and moved the case from McLennan to Bell County, she failed to complete or file any other pleadings on the client’s behalf. Brown was administratively suspended from the practice of law on September 19, 2016.
However, Brown did not file a motion to withdraw in the pending case. Further, when the client contacted determine the status of the matter, Brown informed the client that they were “just waiting on a court date,” and did not inform the client of her suspension. In September 2016, Brown abandoned her law practice without notice to the client and failed to return the client’s file or refund any unearned fees. In a third case, Brown was paid $1,200 on or about August 2, 2016, to represent a client in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. On September 19, 2016, Brown was administratively suspended from the practice of law.
After her suspension, Brown continued the representation and corresponded with the client regarding responses to discovery requests and the possibility of filing a motion to dismiss. Brown failed to notify the client of her suspension, failed to return the client’s file, and failed to return any unearned portion of the $1,200. The client learned of Brown’s suspension in October 2016 and attempted to negotiate a return of unearned fees but Brown failed to respond to the client’s texts and emails.
Brown violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(11) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. Brown was ordered to pay $5,498 in restitution and $3,700.30 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
SUSPENSIONS
Tyler Kline Berger (Dallas)
On September 10, 2020, Tyler Kline Berger [#24082223], 32, of Dallas, agreed to a 24-month fully probated suspension effective September 1, 2020.
The District 6 Grievance Committee found that Berger was a salaried associate of a law firm and had a LegalZoom profile identifying Berger as such. Berger has the LegalZoom profile because of her association with the firm. Part of Berger’s employment duties at the firm were to provide telephone consultations to LegalZoom referrals with the ultimate goal being that the referrals would hire the firm for representation. Instead of signing some of the referrals up as clients of the firm, and unbeknownst to the firm, Berger instructed the referrals to send payment for legal services to her personal law firm bank account.
Berger corresponded with these clients from her firm email and telephone number even though she had directed the clients’ funds to her personal law firm bank account. Berger failed to promptly deliver funds to the firm that the firm was entitled to receive. Berger made false or misleading communications to potential clients about Berger’s services. Berger engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Berger violated Rules 1.14(b), 7.02(a)(1), and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $700 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Sarah Sue Doezema (Houston)
On September 16, 2020, Sarah Sue Doezema [#24063259], 39, of Houston, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension effective October 1, 2020.
An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Doezema neglected the legal matter entrusted to her and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Doezema violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(b). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Darwin McKee (Austin)
On September 24, 2020, Darwin McKee [#13695700], 69, of Austin, accepted a one-year partially probated suspension [two months active and 10 months probated] effective November 1, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that McKee failed to appear at a hearing while representing a client in a breach of contract case. The panel also found that after the client appealed the case, McKee failed to meet appellate deadlines, notify the appellate court of his subsequent termination, and/or withdraw from the case.
McKee violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.15(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $875 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Raymond Rincon (Dallas)
On September 25, 2020, Raymond Rincon [#16933500], 65, of Dallas, agreed to a three-year partially probated suspension effective October 15, 2020, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on September 8, 2017, the client’s mother hired Rincon to represent her son in a habeas corpus appeal. In representing the client, Rincon neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations Rincon owed to his client by incorrectly filing a writ petition twice and failing to submit a correct writ for several months. Rincon failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from his client. Rincon failed to explain the client’s legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to is client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Rincon failed to obtain written consent from his client regarding the division or arrangement for division of a fee between Rincon and another attorney not in the same firm as Rincon. Rincon failed to take reasonable remedial action to avoid or mitigate the consequences of the other lawyer’s violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rincon violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.04(f)(2), and 5.01(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Kirby Jerome Portley (Austin)
On August 31, 2020, Kirby Jerome Portley [#24085865], 36, of Austin, accepted a one-year active suspension effective September 1, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Portley, on or about2017, to enforce an order in her divorce decree. The complainant paid Portley an advanced fee of $5,000 in cash, which Portley failed to deposit into a trust or escrow account. Portley filed a notice of appearance in the case but filed no other pleading. In addition, the complainant attempted numerous times to contact Portley regarding the status of her case. The only time Portley spoke with the complainant after he was hired, he told the complainant the judge had given permission to enforce the order.
However, Portley filed no pleadings or enforcement motions with the court. The complainant terminated the representation and requested that Portley return unearned fees, but Portley failed to respond or comply with the request. On or about November 28, 2018, after receiving notice of the complaint and filing a response, Portley provided a full refund to the complainant. At that time, Portley represented that he would withdraw from the case but failed to do so.
Portley violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. Portley was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Hugo Vasquez Aguilar (Dallas)
On September 17, 2020, Hugo Vasquez Aguilar [#24006740], 51, ofDallas, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in December 2016, Aguilar was appointed to represent the complainant in a criminal matter. After the complainant’s multiple requests to Aguilar for copies of his file, Aguilar ultimately sent the complainant a copy of the entire file, including discovery. Aguilar violated a law in this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law, specifically Texas Code of Criminal “Procedure Article 39.14.
Aguilar violated Rule 8.04(a)(12). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.”