Lawyer Complaints

May Day Alert 2021: Texas Bar Report on Rogue Texas Lawyers

LIT’s detailed review of Texas Bar Discipline for May 2021. The Grievance Committee members decide who gets slapped – based on who you are.

STATE BAR OF TEXAS ROGUE LAWYERS, MAY EDITION

MAY 1, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 15, 2021

Houston Area

DISBARMENTS

On January 21, 2021, Robert Aaron Markle [#24098037], of The Woodlands, was disbarred.

An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter, Markle neglected his client’s case, failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain the case to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions.

Markle also failed to hold his client’s funds in a trust account and failed to refund any unearned fees.

Markle further failed to respond to the grievance.

In the second matter, Markle took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of the case and unreasonably delayed resolution of the case.

Markle also failed to respond to the grievance.

In the final matter, Markle failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her case and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information.

Markle further failed to promptly deliver funds to his client that she was entitled to receive and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding her funds.

Markle also failed to respond to the grievance.

Markle violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), 3.02, 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $3,250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On January 21, 2021, Robert Aaron Markle [#24098037], of The Woodlands, was disbarred.

An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter, Markle neglected his client’s case, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and further failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Markle also failed to respond to the grievance.

In the second matter, Markle neglected his client’s case, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and further failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information.

Furthermore, Markle failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned.

Markle also failed to respond to the grievance.

Markle violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).

He was ordered to pay $4,500 in restitution and $2,575 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

SUSPENSIONS

On March 5, 2021, Michael Stuart Driver [#24069634], of Houston, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective March 15, 2021.

An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Jeff Vaden) found that Driver failed to abide by his client’s decisions concerning the objectives and general methods of representation, failed to promptly deliver to his client funds that she was entitled to receive, and upon request, failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds.

Driver also failed upon termination of representation to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned.

Driver violated Rules 1.02(a)(1), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 29, 2021, George Angelo Oggero [#24060360], of Houston, received a two-year fully probated suspension effective April 12, 2021.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Savvas Stefanides) found that in representing the complainant in a claim against the homeowners insurance company, Oggero neglected the legal matter entrusted to him.

Oggero failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Oggero failed to provide a written contingent fee agreement. Upon termination of representation, Oggero failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests.

Oggero violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a) 1.04(d), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorneys’ fees.

mastrianiheadshot-removebg-preview

WARNING: YOU NEED TO SCROLL AND SCROLL AND SCROLL THIS HIGH RISK LAWYER AND ROGUES’ BAR PROFILE

On March 2, 2021, John Victor Mastriani [#13184375], of Houston, accepted a 36-month judgment of partially probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that while representing four clients, Mastriani neglected the legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned, and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Mastriani violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11).

He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,870.58 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On March 2, 2021, John Victor Mastriani [#13184375], of Houston, accepted a 36-month judgment of partially probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Reviewed and sanctioned by the Following Committee Members; Melissa Pickett – Roger G. Jain – Anuj Arun Shah – Jeff Vaden) found that while representing four clients, Mastriani neglected the legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information,

failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned,

failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,

and engaged in the practice of law when the lawyer’s right to practice had been administratively suspended for failure to pay required fees and failure to comply with Article XII of the State Bar Rules relating to minimum continuing legal education.

Mastriani violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11).

He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $1,466 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS

On March 16, 2021, Robert Roland Jones III [#24092597], of Houston, accepted a public reprimand.

An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Anuj Arun Shah) found that Jones failed to hold funds belonging to his client separate from his own property and further failed to refund any advance payments of fees that had not been earned.

Jones violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

MEANWHILE IN FLORIDA, LEGAL ROGUES ARE ALSO SPOTLIGHTED. VISIT LAWSINFLORIDA.COM TO FIND THE LATEST LAWYER MISCONDUCT CASES AND MUCH MORE.

On March 15, 2021, Omotayo J. Lawal [#24004144], of Houston, accepted a public reprimand.

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Tesha M. Peeples) found that Lawal neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Lawal further failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information.

Lawal violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.03(b).

He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution.

REST OF THE STATE

RESIGNATIONS

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Terry P. Gorman [#08218200], of Dallas.

At the time of Gorman’s resignation, the following disciplinary cases were pending against him.

In the first case, the complainant hired Gorman on June 3, 2019, to sue a former employer after receiving a right to sue letter dated May 16, 2019, from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC.

The deadline to file suit was August 14, 2019, 90 days from the date of the letter.

Gorman failed to timely file suit.

Additionally, the complainant attempted to contact Gorman numerous times but Gorman failed to respond until after the statute of limitation had run on the complainant’s claims.

Furthermore, Gorman did not inform the complainant that he failed to timely file suit or discuss any concerns he had about the complainant’s claims until September 18, 2020.

In the second case, the complainant initially hired the Law Office of Donald G. Henslee (“Henslee”) on August 4, 2017, to send a demand letter to the complainant’s son’s former school concerning special education services.

Gorman was “of counsel” to the Henslee firm and assigned to handle the complainant’s case.

Gorman recommended, and the complainant agreed, that the complainant should file suit without sending a demand letter.

After the complainant’s suit was filed, the opposing party answered and presented a counter-claim for defamation.

Gorman represented to the complainant that he would file an anti-SLAPP motion to dispose of the defamation claim but failed to do so.

Subsequently, the opposing party served Gorman with written discovery requests. Gorman timely answered the requests for admissions but failed to adequately respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents.

The opposing party filed two motions to compel discovery and for sanctions.

After a hearing, the court sanctioned the complainant and ordered him to pay a total of $1,000.

Gorman failed to notify the complainant of the filed pleadings, the hearings, or the sanctions. Eventually, Gorman paid the $1,000.

In July 2018, Henslee resigned in lieu of discipline.

Neither Henslee nor Gorman notified the complainant that Henslee could no longer practice law.

In the third case, the complainant initially hired the Law Office of Donald G. Henslee (“Henslee”) in November 2017 to file a complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or TEA.

Gorman was “of counsel” to the Henslee firm and assigned to handle the complainant’s case.

In a telephone conversation on December 14, 2017, Gorman told the complainant that he would file complaints with TEA; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC; Texas Workforce Commission; and Texas’ Civil Rights Office.

The complainant agreed with Gorman’s recommendations but Gorman did not file any of the complaints.

The complainant, without the assistance of counsel, filed a complaint with the EEOC and obtained a right to sue letter on December 21, 2018.

After the complainant provided Gorman with the right to sue letter, Gorman timely filed suit in federal court.

However, without consulting the complainant, Gorman filed a voluntary dismissal of the federal suit on June 14, 2019, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

The same day Gorman refiled an almost identical federal lawsuit in the same court in hopes of getting it assigned to another judge.

The complainant terminated Gorman’s representation and proceeded pro se.

After a hearing, the court dismissed the second lawsuit because:

1) at the time the second lawsuit was filed some of the claims were time-barred;

and

2) those claims filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations were not supported by the facts pleaded.

Subsequently, Gorman represented to the complainant that he would appeal the dismissal.

However, Gorman failed to timely file the notice of appeal and did not timely order court transcripts.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for failing to timely file the notice of appeal.

Gorman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 3.02, and 3.04(d).

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Bryan Lee Simmons [#24033190], of Bloomburg.

At the time of Simmons’ resignation, there was one pending matter against him alleging professional misconduct.

On November 12, 2020, Simmons was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b(1)C)—conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine).

Simmons was sentenced to 48 months’ incarceration and, upon release from imprisonment, Simmons was ordered to not serve as an attorney or engage in the practice of law in any capacity for a period of three years.

Simmons violated Rule 8.04(a)(2).

Former Texas Lawyer Scott Scher May Have An Ally In Mind Once He Reads This

As the Scher family face foreclosure, could Isaac Nesser, the Quinn Emanuel partner who prevailed in 100 toxic loan cases, aid his appeal?

Strike II – You Can’t Have a Fifth Circuit Clerk Filing Your Motions, That’s Void Ab Initio

The Burkes file a motion to strike Hopkins Law’s response as the motion they are objecting to is void ab initio. It was unlawfully filed.

A Motion to Strike Hopkins Law Scandalous Reply is Lodged At The Fifth Circuit

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black; Austin Creditor Rights Lawyers Mark and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law impetuously project their hypocrisy.

SUSPENSIONS

On March 5, 2021, Scottie Allen [#01058020], of Dallas, agreed to a 32-month fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2021.

An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee (Price Lewis Johnson, Jr.) found that on or about August 10, 2015, Allen was hired to represent the complainant in two criminal cases.

Scottie Allen with Judge Lisa Green, Dallas County, Texas

In representing the complainant, Allen failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant.

Allen also failed to timely respond to the grievance filed against him without asserting a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to respond.

Allen violated Rule 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8).

He was ordered to pay $1,700 in restitution and $3,079.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

From JudgeLisaGreen.Org website (now deleted page….)

Endorsements

Judge Lisa Green is proud to have the endorsement and support of the following individuals and organizations.

Personal

  • Scottie Allen, Attorney
  • Stephanie Alvarado, Attorney
  • Marc Fellman, Fellman Law Office

Organizations

  • Dallas Black Criminal Bar Association
  • Mexican American Bar Association of Dallas
  • Dallas Bar Association

On March 18, 2021, Blake Daniel Allred [#24069292], of Bayou Vista, accepted a 24-month judgment of a fully probated suspension effective March 18, 2021. (There’s a second “fully probated” sanction comin’ in April too, also adjudicated by Tesha Peeples).

An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee (Tesha M. Peeples) found that while representing a client, Allred neglected the legal matters entrusted to him;

failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information;

failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned;

engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

and

failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Allred violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8).

He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $2,960 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 4, 2021, Kenavon Tramayne Carter [#24044913], of Austin, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021.

An investigatory panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee (Sylvia F. Hardman -“Retired”) found that Carter failed to timely return an unearned fee in a criminal matter. Carter violated Rule 1.14(b).

He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

WORKS FOR LONE STAR LEGAL AID (A PERFECT MATCH)

On March 15, 2021, Christopher Dante Demerson [#24066913], of College Station, accepted a three-year fully probated suspension effective May 1, 2021.

An evidentiary panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee (Michelle L. Griffin) found that Demerson neglected a criminal matter entrusted to him and failed to explain the matter to the extent necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Demerson violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(b).

He was ordered to pay $1,460.80 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Jesse Hernandez, San Antonio

On March 2, 2021, Jesse Hernandez [#24050752], of San Antonio, agreed to a two-year fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2021.

An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee (Justin Hill, Chair) found that Hernandez neglected a client’s matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, failed to hold funds separate from his own property, and failed to promptly notify and deliver funds to the client and to the health care providers.

Hernandez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.14(b).

On March 26, 2021, Jerry B. Register [#16733500], of Huntsville, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective April 9, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated.

An investigatory panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in a property transaction, Register neglected the legal matter entrusted to him.

Register frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations that he owed to his client.

Register failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Register failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding the representation.

Register also engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Register violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.02(a)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(3).

He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees.

LIT QUESTIONS THE TIMING OF THIS LATEST OFFENCE

In the first disciplinary action, Nance was given a fully probated one year period sentence, ending 14 Nov. 2020. Interestingly, the second suspension is issued just months after the first suspension ended, thus avoiding potential disbarment for breaching her suspension.

The question is, when did Nair file the complaint. It’s conveniently not included in the public reports available online, what they refer to is the Feb 11, 2021 Disciplinary hearing, but that’s not the date of the complaint OR the period where Nance committed the violations during Nair’s representation, which should control if Nance was in violation during her first probation period.

TEXAS LAWYER JAMI NANCE WAS IN A JAM AFTER DIPPING INTO THE CLIENTS FUNDS AND WRITING HER CLIENT A “HOT CHECK” FOR $78K.

On February 25, 2021, Jami Kay Shrader Nance [#24069057], of Round Rock, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021.

An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Nance failed to keep a client reasonably informed, failed to hold a client’s funds separate from her own property, and failed to respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority.

Nance violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), and 8.01(b).

JAMI NANCE AKA JAMI HALE’S SECOND AGREED JUDGMENT OF PROBATED SUSPENSION

Parties and Appearance

Chief Disciplinary Counsel and Respondent, JAMI KAY SHRADER NANCE, a/k/a JAMI HALE, Texas Bar Number 24069057, announce that an agreement has been reached on all matters including the imposition of a Probated Suspension.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The Investigatory Panel 10-4, having conducted an Investigatory Hearing on February 11, 2021 on the Complaint filed by Arun S. Nair, finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and that venue is proper.

Professional Misconduct

The Investigatory Panel, having considered the admissions, stipulations and agreements of the parties, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(CC) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner and Respondent agree to the following findings of fact. Accordingly, the Investigatory Panel finds:

1 Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

2 Respondent’s Professional Misconduct occurred, in whole or in part, in Bexar County, Texas.

3 During her representation of Mr. Nair, Respondent failed to hold funds belonging to Nair that were in Respondent’s possession in connection to the divorce representation separate from Respondent’s own property.

4 Respondent also failed to promptly comply with Nair’s reasonable requests for information.

5 Respondent also failed to explain the divorce matter to Nair so that Mr. Nair could make informed decisions regarding the representation.

6 Respondent also failed to respond to lawful demands for information from the State Bar of Texas in relation to this disciplinary matter.

Conclusions of Law

Based on the agreed foregoing findings of fact, the Investigatory Panel finds that the following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct have been violated: 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), and 8.01(b).

Sanction

It is AGREED and ORDERED that the sanction of a Probated Suspension shall be imposed against Respondent and is in accordance with Part XV of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, with the suspension being fully probated pursuant to the terms stated below.

The period of probated suspension shall begin on April 1, 2021 and shall end on March 31, 2023.

Terms of Probation

It is further ORDERED that during all periods of suspension, Respondent shall be

under the following terms and conditions:

1 Respondent shall not violate any term of this judgment.

2 Respondent shall not engage in Professional Misconduct as defined by Rule 1.06(CC) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

3 Respondent shall not violate any state or federal criminal statutes.

4 Respondent shall keep State Bar of Texas membership department notified of current mailing, residence and business addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers.

5 Respondent shall comply with Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirements.

6 Respondent shall comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) requirements.

7 Respondent shall promptly respond to any request for information from the Chief Disciplinary Counsel in connection with any investigation of any allegations of Professional Misconduct.

8 Respondent shall make contact with the Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program (TLAP) at its hotline number, 800-343-8527, not later than seven (7) days after receipt of a copy of this judgment to inquire as to services and referrals offered by that program to aid in Respondent’s rehabilitation. Respondent shall additionally send verification of contact with TLAP to the State Bar of Texas within fifteen (15) days such contact.

9 Within ten (10) days of Respondent’s receipt of a copy of this judgment, Respondent shall schedule a full psychological assessment to be conducted by a mental health professional licensed in Texas as a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a master’s level social worker (LCSW), or a licensed professional counselor (LPC). Respondent shall attend and complete the assessment at the earliest practicable date, but in no event later than ninety (90) days after receipt of a copy of this Although the details of information disclosed during the assessment shall remain confidential, the conclusions, diagnosis and treatment plan recommendations of the mental health professional shall be reported to the State Bar of Texas within ten (10) days of the completion of the assessment. Respondent shall take all necessary action, including the execution of a valid release of information, to allow and direct the mental health professional to report such results and recommendations.

10 If recommended as part of the above assessment, Respondent shall remain under the care of one or more mental health professionals at the frequency recommended by the treatment plan for the duration of the supervision period or until released in writing by the treatment provider. Each treating mental health professional shall provide written quarterly reports to the State Bar of Texas verifying Respondent’s attendance at the sessions and good faith participation in the treatment plan. The initial report(s) shall be due ten (10) days after completion of the assessment, with subsequent reports due quarterly thereafter. Respondent shall take all necessary action, including the execution of a valid release of information, to permit any treating mental health professional to provide written or oral reports for the duration of the supervision period.

11 Respondent shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred, directly or indirectly, by compliance with these terms and shall pay all such costs and expenses as required by the provider, but in no event later than the final day of the supervision period.

12 All reports and verifications of compliance with the above shall be sent to the State Bar of Texas via USPS to: Compliance Monitor, Office of the CDC, State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711-2487; or via Delivery: Office of the CDC, State Bar of Texas, 1414 Colorado St., Austin, TX 78701, or via FAX to: 512- 427-4167.

  1. Respondent shall make contact with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Offices’ Compliance Monitor at 877-953-5535, 1334 and Special Programs Coordinator at 877-953-5535, ext. 1323, not later than seven (7) days after receipt of a copy of this judgment to coordinate Respondent’s compliance.

Probation Revocation

Upon information that Respondent has violated a term of this judgment, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel may, in addition to all other remedies available, file a motion to revoke probation pursuant to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (“BODA”) and serve a copy of the motion on Respondent pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 21a.

BODA shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, BODA shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether Respondent has violated any term of this Judgment. If BODA finds grounds for revocation, BODA shall enter an order revoking probation and placing Respondent on active suspension from the date of such revocation order. Respondent shall not be given credit for any term of probation served prior to revocation.

It is further ORDERED that any conduct on the part of Respondent which serves as the basis for a motion to revoke probation may also be brought as independent grounds for discipline as allowed under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Publication

This suspension shall be made a matter of public record and appropriately published in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Other Relief

All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.

Justin Hill, Presiding Member.

May Day Alert 2021: Texas Bar Report on Rogue Texas Lawyers
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top