During the Democratic primary, Harris County District Judge Steven Kirkland was defeated by challenger Dawn Rogers. Rogers was part of a wave of women of color who successfully opposed five Democratic male state district judges this spring in Houston, eliminating the incumbents’ chances of keeping their names on the ballot before the partisan portion of election season had even begun.
Rogers, a Houston-based lawyer for debt collection law firm Zwicker & Associates, now faces Republican Dan Lemkuil in the general election.
Lemkuil, a former associate judge in family court, is now a solo practitioner who primarily handles family law and other civil matters. He says he’s equipped for the job because he’s practiced before numerous types of trial and appellate courts (including the Supreme Court of Texas) and knows “how to avoid those things that cause appeals, waste time and interfere with the administration of justice.”
Rogers’ 17-year legal career includes stints at the Texas Attorney General’s Office, boutique defense firm Callier & Garza and her own law firm practicing contract disputes, foreclosure, debt collection, family law and property matters. She has also worked as an administrative judge for the Texas Education Agency, arbitrator for the Texas Comptroller and ad litem for Harris County civil courts.
Rogers did not respond to requests for an interview or to fill out a questionnaire prepared by The Texas Lawbook, but her opponent’s responses to the questionnaire are below.
Dan Lemkuil
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: It is kind of a family tradition. My father was a police officer. My paternal grandfather was a U.S. deputy marshal. I grew up in a law-and-order household. I was also the only member of my family other than my maternal grandfather to complete a bachelor’s degree – so the progression to law school happened as a natural extension rather than an early conceived plan.
Q: What led you to enter this race?
A: I became interested in the 334th when Judge Kirkland announced his run for the Texas Supreme Court last cycle. I anticipated I would not be running against an incumbent.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your career and how your previous experience would help you during your service on the bench.
A: I served over five years as an associate judge in family court. I learned to think and handle cases as a judge. I have been licensed for over 20 years and practiced in justice court, county court, district court, courts of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. I have seen a lot of different ways of doing the job. I know what works and what does not. I know how to avoid those things that cause appeals, waste time and interfere with the administration of justice. I am ready to do the job.
Q: What do you wish you’d been taught in law school that you were not?
A: Law school teaches you what the law is at the time you attend school. It teaches how to figure out or research the updates or find the changes in the law. What they didn’t tell us was how to find someone or even the need for someone in practice to advise and continue the educational process after you graduate. School is quite good in filling you with confidence and telling you how good the school is at preparing you for practice, but it does not tell you that you still need someone to fill in the details about how and where to pay a filing fee, how to pay money into the registry of the court, where to file for a change to your vacation letter and can I trust this attorney if we don’t have time to do a Rule 11. A lot of these things have changed with the advent of online filing. Many have not. You still need a mentor in the business, and law schools need to admit that you graduate needing to know a lot more information specific to the jurisdiction(s) where you will practice.
Q: What are one or two of the most significant cases you have handled as a trial lawyer?
A: I have two published cases from the Texas Supreme Court, and they are my most significant cases: Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999) and Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013). In Phillips, I was the trial attorney and handled the case through the court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, including oral arguments. In Tucker, I was not the original trial attorney, but did both appeals and then represented Mr. Tucker on subsequent trial work to preserve the benefits of the Supreme Court case.
Q: How often do you practice before the civil courts in Harris County?
A: The majority of my caseload is in family court, which is part of civil. Some people make a distinction. I also do a fair amount of nonfamily cases. Before COVID-19, I was in court several times a week. However, since COVID-19, although the cases are filed, there are few hearings.
Q: How many cases have you tried before a jury in your career?
A: I don’t recall. I’ve done several.
Q: What kind of change would you like to see in the courthouse, and what would you do to promote change if elected?
A: Internet connectivity is really bad. It has improved marginally since Zoom hearings. It needs to improve a lot more. Now that we have hearings where some witnesses, parties and attorneys are in the courtroom and others are spread out all over, counsel need to have access to the internet at the counsel tables as part of the court’s infrastructure. For example, I am currently in trial (on recess) in a case where we have witnesses in California, near Dallas and in the courtroom. This is the future of litigation. The court has to keep
up. I would work with commissioners court and the other judges to improve the infrastructure so that when we eventually move from COVID-19 we can keep what’s good and what works.
Q: What sets you apart from your opponent?
A: I am a former judge. I have done the job. I know how to do it and how to manage the court. My experience in state courts is broader and deeper in the scope of cases I have tried and appealed. I am ready to get things moving.
Q: One of the biggest challenges civil courts are facing right now is the backlog of jury trials due to COVID-19. What would you do to combat that challenge?
A: The bar is aware of the backlog. The attorneys have discussed their cases with each other. In a lot of cases, they know how the case should settle and the terms it should settle for. These people are smart. Sometimes all that is needed is to get everyone in the same room. I know a lot has been said about mediation and arbitration. Before a jury trial, most courts require mediation. In many jury cases, that all took place before COVID-19. I would set up telephone conferences with the attorneys to see how COVID-19 and the long delays have changed things. I would let the attorneys have a voice in the management of their own cases.
Where agreeable, I would begin using the Supreme Court guidelines in starting the
trials. More than one case I have had settled just after the jury was seated or just after voir dire, but it starts with getting the process back underway.
Q: There is a significant problem with (a) jury attendance and (b) jury pool diversity. Less than one in five people summonsed to jury service shows up. Those who do show up do not seem to be a representative cross-section of the community. How is this impacting the administration of justice in Texas and what can be done about it?
A: When looking at the issue statewide, I think the issue is more of an urban than a rural issue. In more rural communities, that has not been my experience or one that I could see. When you look at Harris County, the picture does change if you are looking for a statistical cross section.
In my experience talking to the jurors after verdicts in Harris County, I have been very impressed. They “got it.” They understood the presentations of both sides. They understood the instructions, and more importantly they worked to deliver a verdict that reflected the facts as they saw them. They got annoyed with the wasting of their time and the petty squabbles between attorneys. They kept the showboating of the attorneys out of the review of facts and focused on the issues at hand.
When you also consider the peremptory challenges and the challenges for cause, the exemption from service and the system we use to form the jury pool, I am not sure that the final jury would represent a statistical cross section of the community.
When you say “what can be done about it,” I am not convinced it’s an issue that needs correcting, but I have never heard a juror say that the money they get was worth the time they lost. They could be paid more, which is an option if the parties agree. Jury service could be more convenient, such as participation by Zoom. I am not convinced that’s a solution, but I would be open to it.
Q: No matter what you say here, some voters will vote against you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same, but could be convinced otherwise. What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?
A: The job of being a judge should not be bound by party affiliation. Politics should not be a part of the administration of justice. Justice lies in the impartial application of the law to the facts of the case. Until we change the system, every judge will be affiliated with a party, but again, the party politics of a legislator or an executive member of government should not apply to the judicial members. Those individuals should be selected by the content of their character, the breadth of their experience and the tools of experience they bring to the job. That test demonstrates you should vote for Dan Lemkuil as judge of the 334th District Court.
Q: Is there anything else you would like voters to know?
A: My website is www.Lemkuil4Judge.com. I ask for your vote for judge of the 334th District Court.
Publisher’s Note: This coverage of the 2020 judicial elections by The Texas Lawbook is being made available outside our paywall courtesy of Thompson Coburn and Carter Arnett.