Houston area

SUSPENSIONS

On September 11, 2019, Kerry Michael Guidry [#24045993], 40, of Houston, accepted a five-year active suspension effective January 1, 2020.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Guidry failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

Guidry also failed to provide his clients with a written statement describing the outcome of the cases. Additionally, Guidry failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to clients or third persons in a separate trust account, failed to promptly deliver funds to clients or third persons, and failed to keep funds, in which both he and clients claimed interests, separate.

Guidry further engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Guidry violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.14(c), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $60,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 14, 2019, W. David Marion [#00792667], 52, of Houston, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective September 1, 2019.

An evidentiary panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that, while representing three clients, Marion neglected the legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

Also, upon termination of representation, Marion failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel responses or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. In one of those matters, Marion also failed to explain a legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Marion violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $650 in attorneys’ fees and $130 in direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS

On September 11, 2019, Jonathan Lee Chatmon [#24068666], 36, of Houston, accepted an agreed judgment of public reprimand.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Chatmon failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her personal injury matter. Additionally, upon Chatmon’s receipt of settlement funds, he failed to promptly notify his client and/or her medical providers and further failed to promptly deliver said settlement funds to his client and/or her medical providers.

Chatmon violated Rules 1.03(a) and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 26, 2019, David Christian Lindsay [#24092703], 31, of Houston, accepted an agreed judgment of public reprimand.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Lindsay assisted or counseled his client to engage in conduct that Lindsay knew was criminal or fraudulent. Lindsay further failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to his client in a separate trust or escrow account.

Lindsay violated Rules 1.02(c) and 1.14(a). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 17, 2019, Mary Elizabeth Van Orman [#00788762], 54, of The Woodlands, accepted an agreed judgment of public reprimand.

An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that Van Orman frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations owed to her client. Van Orman further failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to promptly comply with her client’s reasonable requests for information.

Additionally, Van Orman failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Payment was eventually made to the client.

Van Orman violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). She was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Rest of the state

BODA

On September 18, 2019, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Austin attorney Tallion Kyle Taylor [#24033263], 45.

On January 31, 2019, Taylor was convicted by a jury of possession of child pornography in three separate judgments, an intentional crime as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, in the case styled The State of Texas v. Tallion Kyle Taylor, Cause No. 15-2925-K368, in the 368th District Court of Williamson County.

Taylor was sentenced to prison for 10 years. The sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision for 10 years for each judgment of conviction. Taylor has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 61628.

SUSPENSIONS

On September 16, 2019, Simeon Olumide Coker [#24049013], 43, of Dallas, agreed to a 12-month active suspension effective October 1, 2019.

An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in June 2017, the complainant hired Coker to represent him in a personal injury matter. During Coker’s representation of the complainant, Coker misrepresented the status of the matter, including but not limited to, the date he filed the petition in the complainant’s matter.

Further, in responding to the grievance filed by the complainant, Coker misrepresented facts and was otherwise dishonest with the State Bar of Texas.

Coker violated Rule 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $850 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 27, 2019, Antonius B. Massar [#13164200], 63, of Garland, received a six-month fully probated suspension effective October 1, 2019.

An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Massar, in representing a client, failed to explain the legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation and continued to represent the client when it reasonably appeared to become adversely limited by Massar’s own interests.

Massar entered into an arrangement for, charged, or collected an unconscionable fee and accepted payment of legal services from an individual on behalf of the client without his client’s consent.

Massar released discovery to a third party in violation of Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Massar violated Rules 1.03(b), 1.04(a), 1.06(b)(2), 1.08(e), and 8.04(a)(12). He was ordered to pay $675 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On May 24, 2019, Rodolfo R. Munoz [#14670250], 74, of San Antonio, received a four-year partially probated suspension effective June 1, 2019, with the first two years actively served and the remainder probated.

The 73rd Civil District Court of Bexar County found that Munoz committed professional misconduct by violating Rules 1.15(a)(3) [failing to withdraw from representation when discharged by the client], 3.01 [frivolous claim], 3.02 [taking a position that unreasonably increases the costs or other burdens of the case or that unreasonably delays resolution of the matter], 3.04(c)(5) [engaging in conduct intended to disrupt the proceedings], and 4.04(a) [using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person].

On September 9, 2019, Patrick Cameron Murray [#24094862], 32, of Lubbock, agreed to a two-year fully probated suspension effective September 16, 2019.

An evidentiary panel of the District 16 Grievance Committee found that Murray failed to keep a client reasonably informed and failed to respond to the grievance.

Murray violated Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 25, 2019, David M. Seeberger [#17979300], 63, of Dallas, received an agreed judgment of fully probated suspension effective October 1, 2019, and ending September 30, 2020.

An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Seeberger was retained by his clients for representation in a civil matter. In representing his clients, Seeberger neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Seeberger failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their case, and he failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the clients.

Seeberger violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $1,315 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On September 24, 2019, Robert Ray Smith [#18678070], 60, of Georgetown, accepted a five-year active suspension, effective October 11, 2019.

An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that Smith was hired to represent a client to obtain four non-disclosure orders and one expunction order in five criminal cases. Smith guaranteed the client that the cases would be finished within two months.

After some time, Smith informed the client that he had not filed anything on her behalf and needed more time. After nine months, the client went to Smith’s office to obtain her case files. At the time, Smith informed her he obtained one non-disclosure order and one expunction order, and he provided her with copies of these allegedly file-stamped documents.

The next week, the client appeared at the Travis County Courthouse to obtain certified copies of these orders and learned that the orders provided to her by Smith were fraudulent. Upon further investigation, it was determined that Smith forged the judge’s signatures on both orders and created the fraudulent file stamps.

Smith violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 8.04(a)(2), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $2,709.27 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

On September 25, 2019, David M. Seeberger [#17979300], 63, of Dallas, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand.

An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Seeberger’s client hired him for an ongoing breach of contract lawsuit. In representing his client, Seeberger neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case.

Seeberger violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a).  He was ordered to pay $2,832.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.