Attorney at Law
Tel: 713-784-7618 Fax: 713-784-9063
To: The Honorable
Judge of the Court via
hand delivery to the court
Re: 2002-42081: Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John
After the Judgment for Disbarment was entered, someone sent
many if not all the Harris County Judges a notice of the court’s ruling. I thought that it was the State Bar who sent
the notices but at the hearing on Monday the State Bar denied it.
In order to quash some of the rumors that have been going
around, I would submit the following, if you are interested:
In 1993, the State Bar sued me after the statute of limitations had run. The suit was dismissed by Judge Clauson on my Motion. However, I have had to deal with the fact that the lawsuit is in the public record and I had to deal with it when I was running for governor. I did not move to seal the file because I thought sealing the record would create unfounded speculation. I did not get my day in court but I did file a detailed answer before the suit was dismissed.
I did not file suit on the State Bar at that time because I
was living in Colorado but I told Dawn Miller, attorney for the State Bar then
and now the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar, that if she ever filed
anything against me again that I would shut down the grievance process.
In June 2000, a fee dispute arose between myself and a
client and the client filed a grievance, I sued the client and Dawn Miller
pursued the grievance. I was offered a
public reprimand in the matter and I refused it. Two years later the Commission filed
suit. Two and a half months later, just
before my motion for summary judgment was to be heard, Dawn Miller added five
more complaints to the lawsuit without filing them with the Clerk of the
Supreme Court as is required per Rule 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 of the Texas Rules of
My position is that the court had no jurisdiction to hear
these additional complaints and its Judgment for Disbarment is therefore
void. Also, the court severed my
mandatory counter claims over my objection and went to trial on the TDRPC Rule
violations only which is an abuse of discretion. Also, the first complaint was barred by res
judicata because it had been tried to conclusion in the 281st
District Court six weeks prior to the disciplinary trial beginning.
There are many more issues involved because I deliberately
refused to cooperate with the grievance committee in order to have standing in
the courts to have these issues addressed.
I know many think I am crazy to put my license on the line to challenge
the unworkable and abusive, coercive grievance process but that is because they
have not had to deal with a bad faith permanent public reprimand that Dawn
Miller achieved by suing me ten years ago after the statute of limitations had
One fundamental problem with the grievance process is that
the attorney has no due process rights in the grievance process prior to an
election for a trial de novo if “just cause” is found by the investigatory
committee. The law is unclear whether an
attorney can assert the Fifth Amendment in the investigatory process without
further violating other TDRPC rules.
Another major problem with the grievance process is that a
client who would not have a dog’s chance in Hades of getting over the “suit
within a suit” and “but for” requirements in an attorney malpractice case can
have an attorney disbarred for refusing to file a frivolous and groundless
lawsuit via a grievance.
In regards to attorney/client complaints, there must be one
consistent set of rules that logically applies to both legal malpractice
lawsuits and disciplinary lawsuits.
Another problem is that the State Bar has a derivative lawsuit with
regards to attorney/client complaints per Rule 4.06 TRDP and yet the State Bar
alleges that the common law and statutory mandates of compulsory counter claims
and res judicata do not apply in a disciplinary lawsuit.
The most irritating and abusive problem is that in my case
the State Bar deliberately manipulated the investigatory process by placing the
majority of the frivolous and groundless complaints against me with one
committee of its 33 investigatory committees which the State Bar knew would
find “just cause” against me.
In a nutshell, the grievance system is subject to
manipulation and is arbitrary and therefore unfair, unjust, and harmful to the
entire legal system because attorneys cannot afford to take on indigent clients
who will use the grievance process to cause problems for an attorney who they
believe has not taken care of their legal problems. The truth is that if an attorney was to
follow the TDRPC to the letter, he or she would have to charge $500 per hour.
If anyone has a question, feel free to contact me. Email is the most effective method of
communicating with me. At some point
this whole matter will be on the Internet.
How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Insignia : Explanation
To order a WorldPeace Insignia lapel pin, go to: Order
To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page
To the WorldPeace Peace Page