Attorney Disciplinary Process
April 5, 2004 Houston, Texas
John WorldPeace Tel: 713-784-7618 Fax: 713-784-9063
To: All attorneys and law professors in the State of Texas
Re: REGARDING THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE PROCESS
1) This is an update on Cause No. 2002-42081, Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. WorldPeace, 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas. On November 7, 2003, the trial court denied my motion for new trial and motion to clarify its August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment. Between November 10, 2003 and March 10, 2004, I filed numerous applications for writs of mandamus. Presently, there are six of those applications pending in the Supreme Court and five pending in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in addition to an Appeal and a motion to dismiss the Appeal for lack of jurisdiction in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. My core position is that the Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory because it does not say in the caption or in the body that it is a final judgment and per the admission of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, my cause of action for "injunctive relief" was never adjudicated. So the Judgment for Disbarment does not meet either of the two tests set out in Lehman v Har-Con Corp., 39 SW3d 191, 192-3 (Tex. 2001) and its progeny in the Appeals courts. Consequently, the Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory, unappealable and unenforceable. However, the reality is that I have been de facto disbarred since October 15, 2003.
2) It is my position that the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure are defective; and corrupt in their application by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, its attorneys and the courts. Case in point, Rule 3.01 TRDP was not enforced against the Commission but Rule 3.14 TRDP was enforced against me. A motion is pending in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals on this issue.
3) Further, the law which is applied to a legal malpractice lawsuit does not apply in a disciplinary petition. (requiring an expert witness to prove up the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent attorney is not required in a Disciplinary action)
4) You have no rights against self-incrimination in the Disciplinary process. If you do not waive your rights, you lose your license.
5) There is a question about severing compulsory counter claims that the attorney may file against the client under the TRCP which is incorporated in the TRDP per Rule 3.08B TRDP. And there is a question about res judicata regarding the Commission filing suit after an attorney client lawsuit is tried to conclusion instead of having to join that lawsuit.
6) Both the Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals have requested responses from the Commission. Obviously, if the issues I have presented to the courts were black and white, my applications for writs of mandamus would have been denied or dismissed long ago.
If you are an attorney, I suggest that you visit the web site that I have set up on this matter at htttp://www.johnworldpeace.net/indexsb.htm. If you are a professor, I ask that you direct your students to the site.
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