A group of high-profile Dallas litigators are one step closer to ending a long-running dispute with Al Hill III after the Houston appellate court on Tuesday affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of malicious prosecution claims they were facing.
Hill III is a great-grandson of oil billionaire H.L. Hunt and has been litigating disputes over distribution of the family’s fortune since 2007. A three-justice panel of the First Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed his suit against Lisa Blue, Stephen Malouf, Charla Aldous, Mike Lynn and Jeff Tillotson that brought claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy and aiding and abetting.
Tillotson, of Tillotson Johnson Patton, said in an interview Tuesday he was pleased with the ruling, noting that he never represented Hill III in the underlying litigation and was “unfortunately dragged into a family feud.”
“I did nothing wrong. All I did is make a campaign contribution, which I am well known to do,” he said of what sparked his involvement in the dispute. “I feel like Gerald Ford when he talked about Nixon’s resignation. Our long national nightmare is over. There was absolutely no merit to what he said, and I’m glad the Court of Appeals agreed.”
According to the opinion, between November 2009 and November 2010, Hill III was represented by Blue, Aldous and Malouf. In July 2010, a fee dispute arose between Hill III and his attorneys, and in December 2010, the attorneys sued Hill III for about $50 million in attorney fees.
In a separate incident related to this dispute, Hill III was indicted in March 2011 for allegedly making false statements on a home equity loan application, and the charges were eventually dismissed by a trial judge in March 2013. After the appeals had played out, the judgment became final in 2018, according to the opinion.
Soon thereafter, in June 2019, Hill III launched this lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the lawyers he alleged were responsible for his being targeted by prosecutors.
Hill III alleged in the suit that Lynn and his law partner at that time, Tillotson, convinced then-Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins to prosecute him in retaliation after a federal judge ruled in an earlier dispute over the family trust that Lynn had helped Al Hill Jr. commit perjury on the same loan application that later led to his son’s indictment.
Hill III pointed specifically to Tillotson’s $48,500 campaign donation to Watkins. He further alleged that Blue, who also donated to Watkins’ campaign, pressured Watkins to prosecute him in order to gain leverage in the attorney fee litigation, according to the opinion.
The claims against Aldous and Malouf, Hill III alleged, were largely based on their involvement representing him in the trust litigation and subsequently suing him in the fight over attorney fees.
The attorneys moved to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a law intended to bring an early end to baseless lawsuits brought to chill free speech.
The First Court of Appeals wrote that the claims against Lynn stem from his reporting of potentially criminal activity to a district attorney, an exercise of his right to petition, and the claims against Tillotson stem from his campaign contributions, an exercise of free speech, the panel wrote.
The claims against Blue and Aldous also are based on the exercise of free speech and the claims against Malouf are based on his right of association, the court wrote in concluding the TCPA applies to the claims against each defendant.
“Hill III failed to make a prima facie case for malicious prosecution as to Tillotson, Aldous, and Malouf because there is not clear and specific evidence that that they commenced or caused the prosecution,” the court held. “Hill III did not allege that Tillotson, Aldous, or Malouf provided any information to the district attorney’s office or that they knowingly furnished false information.”
The panel held that Hill III “has not demonstrated that Lynn lacked probable cause or submitted false information to the district attorney to procure Hill III’s prosecution.” And his claims against Blue failed for similar reasons, with the panel holding “Hill III has not identified clear and specific evidence that Blue in fact exerted undue influence over Watkins.”
“The facts are undisputed that she made donations to his political campaign, met with him, exchanged emails and texts, and had conversations with him,” the panel wrote. “To the extent that emails and text messages are included in the record, they do not demonstrate that Blue was pressuring Watkins to prosecute Hill III.”
Recently, in April, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay tossed as meritless a series of claims brought by Hill III over the family fortune, writing the heir was “making a mockery of and abusing the judicial process” with “incessant litigation” over matters the courts have heard and decided repeatedly.
That lawsuit was challenging a 2010 settlement in which Hill III agreed — after receiving a nine-figure payment and other benefits — not to contest his father’s will or file suit over his father’s property. Judge Lindsay noted that the Fifth Circuit had weighed in on Hill III’s claims five times and rejected his arguments each time.
The First Court of Appeals panel — justices Peter Kelly, Richard Hightower and Julie Countiss — heard oral arguments in the dispute Jan. 19, according to court records.
Hill III’s attorneys, Brian Antweil and Matthew M. Buschi of Rapp & Krock, did not respond to a message Tuesday asking whether an appeal was forthcoming.
Aldous and Lynn declined to comment Tuesday, and Blue and Malouf didn’t return messages seeking comment.
Malouf is represented by himself and Jeremy C. Martin of Martin Appeals.
Aldous represented herself.
Lynn is represented by Paul M. Koning of Koning Rubarts.
Tillotson is represented by Shawn Long of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
Hill III is represented by Brian Antweil and Matthew M. Buschi of Rapp & Krock.
The cause number is 01-20-00418-CV.