Exclusive Report on Jeffrey “Mayhem” Gipson and Why the Investigators at the State Bar of Texas Are Lyin’

Jeffrey Gipson Failed the Texas Bar Exam and Mayhem Followed

But He’s Still Pretending to Be a Lawyer – while Texas Personal Injury Lawyer Loren Green (and perhaps, Mark Scott) Knowingly Retain Gipson Despite His Checkered History of Misconduct as a Non-Lawyer.

OCT 11, 2021

LIT has made a point of investigating the investigators at the corrupt State Bar of Texas. This case is a perfect example of the ochlocracy within the Texas Judiciary at both State and Federal levels.

LIT was preparing their article on the September list of disciplined Texas Judges and Lawyers. Included in that list was a ‘fully probated’ suspension for lawyer Loren Green. While reviewing the 2021 sanction, we noted Green had been sanction in 2019 as well. We downloaded a copy of the first judgment.

Immediately, red flags were raised when we noted that the two sanctions were related and one name kept appearing, paralegal Jeffrey Gipson.

THE 2019 JUDGMENT – A PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND 6 HRS ETHICS TRAINING (CLE).

LIT already highlighted Green’s sanction in our earlier article, found here. The June 2019 list of disciplined Texas Lawyers.

In the earlier 2019 judgment against Green the public reprimand falls short too, when compared with Oklahoma, who sanctioned Shanita Gaines to a fully probated two year suspended sentence (Shanita Gaines involvement is detailed further on in this article).

The investigator was Chris Nickelson, District 7-2 Presiding Member. Attorney Nickelson operates his day job as The Law Office of Gary L. Nickelson.

Green retained lawyer Ronald P. Wright.

The Texas Bar was represented by Jackie K. Wheelington.

Yep, the same Texas Bar Counsel for Both Disciplinary Grievance Matters re Loren Green (and Jeffrey Gipson).

THE 2021 JUDGMENT – 36 MONTHS FULLY PROBATED SUSPENSION

In the current 2021 judgment against Green, he was slapped again. Not a single day suspension. Compare that to Oklahoma’s discipline for Gaines where she was DISBARRED for a second and related offense (Shanita Gaines involvement is detailed further on in this article).

The investigator was Jessica Hall Janicek, District 7-2 Presiding Member. Attorney Janicek operates her day job at Koons Fuller.

Green retained lawyer Bobbie Gray Edmonds

The Texas Bar was represented by Jackie K. Wheelington.

THE BAR EXAM AND THE DOOMED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GIPSON AND GAINES

LIT decided to look online for further information on Jeffrey Gipson. We didn’t have to look far for LIT’s investigation to uncover the cover-up by the State Bar of Texas.

Apparently Gipson met Shanita Gaines while studying for the Texas Bar exam. Gaines would pass and Gipson would fail. However, they decided to have a work and personal relationship, which as documented below, would ultimately cost Gaines her Bar license in Oklahoma and then, via reciprocal discipline, in Texas as well, as adjudged by Mark Burroughs.

According to Gaines, she was unaware that Gipson was holding himself out to be a lawyer but when the Bar found that they were was also thievin’ from clients, that ensured she would be disbarred by Oklahoma’s highest court of law.

That would  also end their relationship and Gipson would return to Texas and according to his LinkedIn profile, currently works for two Texas lawyers, namely Loren Green and Mark Scott.

THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS’s COUNSEL WHEELINGTON REPRESENTED THE BAR IN BOTH THE 2019 AND 2021 DISCIPLINARY CASES AGAINST ATTORNEY LOREN GREEN

Bar counsel cannot say they were not aware of the non-lawyer Jeffrey Gipson when there’s been so much traffic since 2018 regarding his misconduct. It took LIT one quick online search to uncover the facts of this case and piece it together, without the benefit of the Texas Bar’s insider knowledge of the facts.

ATTORNEY LOREN GREEN SHOULD BE DISBARRED AND MARK SCOTT LAW GROUP SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY INVESTIGATED

Based on the supporting evidence LIT provides below and the facts stated herein, Green should be disbarred – in keeping with Oklahoma’s Bar. Furthermore, Gipson indicates Mark Scott Law Group as the lead law firm on his LinkedIn profile (it comingles with Green Law) and an immediate investigation into his work at Scott’s firm is also warranted.

Based on the Bar reports of misconduct, Gipson has been wreaking havoc for at least 11 years and the Texas Bar continues to let the mayhem continue. It needs to end. #DefundTheBar.

On June 8, 2021, LOREN CRAIG GREEN [#24029179], of Arlington, agreed to a 36-month fully probated suspension effective June 15, 2021.

The District 7 Grievance Committee found that in August 2017, Green was hired by the complainant for representation relative to a motor vehicle accident.

During the representation, Green’s employee, a non-lawyer, handled the complainant’s case and rendered legal services to the complainant even though the non-lawyer employee is not a licensed attorney.

Green allowed the non-lawyer employee to perform activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Green had direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer employee and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of Green.

The non-lawyer employee failed to exercise due diligence in serving the defendant, he drafted a fraudulent pleading purportedly signed by a fictitious attorney, and failed to notify the complainant that funds had been received by Green’s office for the complainant’s personal property loss.

Green violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), 1.14(b), 3.03(a)(1), 3.03(a)(5), 5.03(b)(2), 5.05(b), and 8.04(a)(3).

He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Anybody But Attorney Green: Non-Lawyers Wanted

In 2019 Green was sanctioned for exactly the same issue and the same Non-Lawyer, Jeffrey Gipson. Here’s Gipson’s resume from LinkedIn

Mark Scott Law Group
Senior Claims Manager

Nov 2018 – Present
3 years

Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Senior Claims Manager at Green Law Texas in Arlington, Texas.

Being focused in the area of auto accident/injury claims, we have developed a broad, no-nonsense approach to providing the most effective legal services possible. We employ a wide range of resources to ensure the best possible recovery for our injury/accident clients, including wrongful death.

Accident/Injury Claims Green Law Texas

Providing dedicated and compassionate representation for those seeking representation for…

Gipson & Associates
Claims Support & Services

Aug 2003 – Jul 2015
12 years

DFW Metroplex

Provided pre-litigation and litigation insurance claims support and services to small law firms and solo practitioners for motor vehicle, mass tort, 18 wheeler, product liability, premises liability and wrongful death claims.

Primerica
District Leader

Feb 2001 – Jun 2004
3 years 5 months

Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Financial consultant who held Securities Principal, Securities, Loan Mortgage Officer and Life and Health Licenses. Supervised up to 10 associates.

Jim Adler & Associates
Investigator

Aug 1999 – Jun 2001
1 year 11 months

Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Conducted investigations of personal injury claims specifically motor vehicle collision, medical malpractice, product liability, premises liability, 18 wheeler collisions, pedestrian collisions, motorcycle collisions, class action tort litigation, and wrongful death. Worked directly with case managers, litigation staff and staff and senior attorneys.

Association of the United States Army
Staff Sergeant

Aug 1989 – May 1999
9 years 10 months

USA, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Panama, Cuba

Spanish Linguist , Infantry, Military Police, Counter Drug Interdiction Specialist

APPELLATE JUSTICE APRIL FARRIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT

APPOINTED BY  GOV. GREG ABBOTT

And Paralegal Gipson Has Done this Before.

The Difference is in Oklahoma, they Disbarred the Lawyer, Gipson’s then Girlfriend Shanita Gaines, who passed the Texas Bar, on the Second Infraction.

Not so, Texas Bar…

Gone To And From Texas

By Legal Profession Prof  | Nov 28, 2018

The Oklahoma Supreme Court disbarred an attorney ,

SHANITA DANIELLE GAINES

for a second encounter with the disciplinary system.

The initial circumstances

The Respondent was licensed to practice law in the State of Texas in 2004 and was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar in 2011. In 2009, the Respondent moved to Oklahoma and continued to practice law in Texas, having not yet been licensed in Oklahoma.

During that period she hired a Texas resident Jeffrey Gipson as a paralegal.

The Respondent met Gipson while the two were studying for the Texas Bar Exam.

Mr. Gipson had failed to pass the exam and had been performing paralegal work.

The Respondent’s law office was essentially Gipson’s home in Texas and she maintained a P.O. Box in which both she and Gipson had access.

In 2012, the Respondent had difficulty communicating with Gipson. In November 2012, while making a trip to the office, she noticed many boxes with her name on them and legal matters initiated by Gipson without her knowledge.

She took the boxes and files with her to Oklahoma and spent the next few months reviewing them. By March 2013, she contacted Gipson and terminated their working relationship. The boxes contained many matters where she was representing persons without her knowledge. Some of these unknown clients filed grievances against her.

Three of these grievances were the subject of Gaines I…

At the time of her probated suspension, the Respondent was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Bar Association instigated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7.7 RGDP.

In April 2016, this Court issued an order directing the Respondent to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed or to request a hearing.

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Gaines, 2016 OK 80, ¶7, 378 P.3d 212.

The Respondent did not file a response, enter an appearance or request a hearing.

Gaines, 2016 OK 80 at ¶7.

This Court held “respondent committed an act of commingling and conversion, neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to supervise an employee that resulted in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to notify the General Counsel of her disciplinary proceeding.”

Id. at ¶15.

We also noted there was no indication the Respondent had been complying with the terms of her probation by making monthly restitution payments.

Id. at ¶12.

An opinion was issued by this Court on June 28, 2016, and Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Oklahoma for two years and one day.

Id.

This Court denied her petition for rehearing on September 12, 2016, and the case was closed the same day.

Here there was post-paralegal misconduct

We have conducted a de novo review of the record and find clear and convincing evidence that establishes the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

Unlike Gaines I, it is clear here the Respondent conducted the settlement of the Gallegos sisters’ personal injury matter and she received the settlement funds. Initially, she failed to properly supervise her non-lawyer staff person, Gipson, and failed to provide her clients a copy of a written and signed contingency fee agreement.

She endorsed the settlement checks herself and cannot recall who endorsed the names of the Gallegos sisters, but she does not dispute the sisters’ testimony that they did not endorse the checks nor authorize anyone else to endorse the checks.

The funds were deposited into the Respondent’s operating account and not her trust account. No funds were delivered to the Gallegos sisters, nor were necessary payments made to all third parties.

She settled the Gallegos case and failed to notify her clients and provide them a settlement statement describing the outcome of the case.

Over several years the Respondent failed to satisfy the sisters’ requests for a status report. At the conclusion of the case she also failed to surrender any papers and property to her clients to which they were entitled.

The Complainant’s brief alleges the evidence conclusively establishes the Respondent misappropriated her clients’ and third parties settlement proceeds. We agree.

Sanction

The record reflects the Respondent misappropriated her clients’ settlement proceeds.

The Complainant has acknowledged mitigating factors including the Respondent’s lack of experience, stress of being a solo practitioner, and her remorse for the harm she has caused her clients and to the reputation of the legal profession.

Nonetheless, the Complainant recommends the Respondent be disbarred retroactively from the effective date of her suspension in Gaines I.

Misappropriation of a client’s funds warrants the harshest discipline and disbarment is appropriate here.

The Respondent is hereby disbarred and her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys upon the date this opinion is filed.