Dear John,
We are pleased to report that a Texas Court of Appeals recently recognized the principle that high-ranking lawyers in state government are subject to disciplinary rules, just like any other lawyer.
In its holding, the Court rejected defenses asserted by the Texas Office of the Attorney General that First Assistant Brent Webster, as a State executive branch attorney, was immune from discipline for alleged ethics violations based on separation of powers and sovereign immunity.
The El Paso Court of Appeals incorporated various arguments from LDAD’s amicus curiae brief. LDAD argued that the Attorney General’s “broad discretion” to represent Texas in civil litigation does not mean that it has “unlimited” discretion. LDAD also contended that disciplinary enforcement does not unduly interfere with the Attorney General’s core powers, because each Texas-licensed lawyer is statutorily subject to such enforcement for alleged ethical violations, and immunity is not essential to effectively represent the State.
The El Paso court’s reasoning would apply equally to the identical defenses Texas Attorney General Kenneth Paxton raises in the parallel case against him currently pending in the Dallas Court of Appeals.
As LDAD Co-Founder and amicus brief author Gershon (Gary) Ratner noted, “the decision is an important victory for the democratic principle that ‘no person is above the law.’”
