The State Bar of Texas has released recent disciplinary actions for judges and lawyers.
JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Judge Eleazar Cano, Count Judge (Bexar County)
On December 13, 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Eleazar Cano, county judge of Brewster County.
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by authorizing the use of his name, title, and likeness on a mailer advertising a campaign event for Representative Roland Gutierrez, Judge Cano endorsed Gutierrez’s candidacy in violation of Canon 5(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further concludes that by engaging in this conduct, and by assisting in the organization of, and introducing the candidate at, the campaign event, Judge Cano used the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of Representative Gutierrez, in violation of Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Guy Williams, 148th District Court (Nueces County)
On December 14, 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued two separate public reprimands to Guy Williams, judge of the 148th District Court in Nueces County.
After considering the facts and evidence before it, the Commission concludes that during the hearing on July 26, 2017, Judge Williams: failed to be dignified and courteous to Melissa and Iris in making his rulings and by his statements; denied Melissa and her attorney the right to be heard; and failed to follow the law when he issued orders affecting the custodial rights of Melissa and Iris regarding their children in the absence of a verified pleading or affidavit in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In addition, Judge Williams’ conduct toward Melissa and Iris during the hearing on July 26, 2017, cast public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice, and was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, in violation of Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
After considering the facts and evidence before it, the Commission concludes that Judge Williams failed to follow the law, and failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to individuals with whom he deals in an official capacity, when he inappropriately touched Judge Sandra Watts, District Clerk Anne Lorentzen, and District Clerk Chief Deputy Lilia Ann Gutierrez, in violation of Canons 2A and 3B(4). He also failed to be dignified and courteous to Judge Sandra Watts when he sent her an offensive text message in violation of Canon 3B(4).
Judge Williams’ conduct toward Judge Sandra Watts, Anne Lorentzen and Lilia Ann Gutierrez also cast public cast public discredit upon the judiciary and the administration of justice in violation of Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
************
In addition, Judge Williams failed to treat the assistant district attorneys in the Anderson and Vasquez cases with patience, dignity and courtesy, and he exhibited prejudice against the assistant district attorneys when he made disparaging comments about the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office in court, in violation of Canons 3B(4) and 3B(5). His statements also cast public cast public discredit upon the judiciary and administration of justice in violation of Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
Judge Williams’ willful and persistent conduct in both the Anderson and Vasquez cases is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, in violation of Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
Judge Andrea Martin, 304th Juvenile District Court (Dallas County)
On December 20, 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Andrea Martin, judge of the 304th Juvenile District Court in Dallas County.
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by engaging in joint campaign efforts with Judge Cooks, including hosting a joint fundraiser, and producing and disseminating campaign materials featuring both Judges that suggested they were running as a team, Judge Martin lent the prestige of her judicial office to advance the private interests of Judge Cooks, in violation of Canon 2B. Moreover, by authorizing the use of her name, title, and likeness on adve1tisements supporting Judge Cooks’ campaign as well as her own, Judge Maitin’s conduct constituted a public endorsement of Judge Cooks expressly prohibited by Canon 5(2). The Commission concludes that Judge Martin’s conduct constituted willful violations of Canons 2B and 5(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Kim Cooks, 255th District Court (Dallas County)
On December 20, 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Kim Cooks, judge of the 255th District Court in Dallas County.
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by engaging in Joint campaign efforts with Judge Martin, including hosting a joint fundraiser, and producing and disseminating campaign materials featuring both Judges suggesting they were running as a team, Judge Cooks lent the prestige of her judicial office to advance the private interests of Judge Martin, in violation of Canon 2B. Moreover, by authorizing the use of her name, title, and likeness on advertisements supporting Judge Martin’s campaign as well as her own, Judge Cooks’ conduct constituted a public endorsement of Judge Martin expressly prohibited by Canon 5(2). The Commission concludes that Judge Cooks’ conduct constituted willful violations of Canons 2B and 5(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Justice Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado, 13th Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi)
On January 2, 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a second order of suspension, without pay, to Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado, justice of the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi, Place 4, in connection with a pending criminal matter.
Note: The State Bar of Texas offered no opinion about the suspension, but the Corpus Christi Caller reported that Delgado was indicted in February 2018 on three counts of bribery and three counts of violating the Travel Act. He was later charged with an additional count of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
SUSPENSIONS
Juan Luis Burgos-Gandia (Richardson)
On October 30, 2018, Juan Luis Burgos- Gandia [#00789916], 67, of Richardson, received a 12-month fully probated suspension effective November 1, 2018.
An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Burgos-Gandia failed to keep his client reasonably informed about case status and failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information. Burgos-Gandia also neglected the client’s legal matter and failed to explain the legal matter to the client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the case. Burgos-Gandia failed to hold unearned fees in a separate trust account, and upon termination of representation, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Burgos-Gandia violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), and 1.15(d).
He was ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution and $1,200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Mark Anthony Davis (Victoria)
On December 18, 2018, Mark Anthony Davis [#24012509], 47, of Victoria, accepted a 13-month partially probated suspension effective June 1, 2019, with the first month actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Davis neglected a client’s matters, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, and failed to return the unearned portion of fees. Davis violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $400 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Richard Clement Dunn (Longview)
On November 15, 2018, Richard Clement Dunn [#06249300], 62, of Longview, received a six-month fully probated suspension effective November 7, 2018.
An evidentiary panel of the District 2 Grievance Committee found that on or about September 23, 2013, the complainant hired Dunn to file a postconviction writ of habeas corpus in a criminal matter. In representing the complainant, Dunn neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to timely file the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the complainant. Dunn’s physical condition materially impaired his fitness to represent the complainant and Dunn failed to withdraw from representation. Upon termination of representation, Dunn failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned.
Dunn violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $2,553.75 in attorneys’ fees and $669.50 in direct expenses. Dunn filed an appeal on December 11, 2018.
Xavier Duran (Dallas)
On September 18, 2018, Xavier Duran [#24015154], 47, of Dallas, received a three-year partially probated suspension effective October 15, 2018, with the first three months actively suspended and the remainder probated.
An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Duran was hired in a criminal matter and was paid $5,000 for the representation. Thereafter, Duran neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to complete any legal work on the case. Duran also failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed and comply with reasonable requests for information. Upon termination, Duran failed to refund any unearned fees.
Duran violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $3,522.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Beauregard Driller Fiegel (San Antonio)
On December 3, 2018, Beauregard Driller Fiegel [#24086782], 33, of San Antonio, agreed to a three-month active suspension effective July 1, 2019.
An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Fiegel neglected a client’s matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, failed to refund the unearned portion of fees, failed to notify a client of the attorney’s cessation of practice, and failed to respond to the grievance.
Fiegel violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(10). He was ordered to pay $2,256 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Viney K. Gupta (Orange, CA)
On December 13, 2018, Viney K. Gupta [#00790085], 70, of Orange, California, accepted a nine-month fully probated suspension effective December 15, 2018.
An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that on July 6, 2011, Gupta received $2,500 from the complainant’s family for the complainant’s immigration bond. When the complainant’s immigration matter was concluded, a check dated January 27, 2017, was sent to Gupta. The total amount of the check was $2,825.01, which included the original bond amount and accrued interest in the amount of $325.01. Gupta received the refunded bond check, did not notify the complainant of its receipt, and did not promptly remit the funds to the complainant.
Gupta violated Rule 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $1,280.58 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Paul Andrew Smith (Austin)
On December 7, 2018, Paul Andrew Smith [#24010408], 49, of Austin, accepted an 18-month partially probated suspension effective December 15, 2018, with one month actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that Smith represented a client in a personal injury matter. The client received treatment from the complainant, a chiropractor. Smith provided the complainant with a letter of protection. Smith sent the complainant a check from his trust account for $1,000. However, when the complainant attempted to deposit the check three months later, it was returned for insufficient funds. After the grievance was filed, Smith issued another check to the complainant for $1,000 that was successfully negotiated. Smith violated Rule 1.14(a). Smith was ordered to pay $630.38 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
Scott Erik Edgett (Plano)
On December 4, 2018, Scott Erik Edgett [#24063588], 43, of Plano, agreed to a public reprimand.
An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in June 2016, Edgett was hired by his client to handle a federal appeal and was paid a fee of $10,000. Edgett failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case and upon termination of representation, Edgett failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Edgett violated Rules 1.03(a) and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $5,350 in restitution and $885 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Armando Javier Roman (San Antonio)
On December 18, 2018, Armando Javier Roman [#24046752], 44, of San Antonio, accepted a public reprimand.
An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Roman failed to communicate with a client, failed to explain to his client the basis for the fee sufficiently, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to return the client file.
Roman violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.04(c), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $5,960 in restitution and $2,800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.