LIT COMMENTARY
A dozen publicly disciplined lawyers, and in total millions of dollars stolen. Zero jail time as lawyers in Texas continue to be “Above the Law”. Then there’s the three amigos, the Texas attorney’s who were caught misbehavin’ but it warrants a secret slap by the the Texas Bar; you’ll never know their names. Oh, and lets not forget the Boyd case below; Fabricating Evidence Warrants only a Public Reprimand According to the Texas Bar. #DefundTheBar.
Compare to: Merryman v. Davis, No. 17-50914 (5th Cir. July 12, 2019); “The criminal charges concerned Merryman’s conduct with respect to several construction projects he undertook as a general contractor. See id. According to the state appellate court’s account, Merryman “obtained a series of advance payments from the customers before failing to complete each project.” Merryman received concurrent sentences ranging from two years of imprisonment to sixteen years of imprisonment and was ordered to pay restitution.“
Disciplinary Actions — June 2020 State Bar list
General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535.
The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at (512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available at www.txboda.org. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free, (877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533.
Please note that persons disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed attorneys.
Houston area
REINSTATEMENT
JOHN-BAPTIST A. SEKUMADE [#24051589], 56, filed a petition in the 11th District Court in Harris County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas.
SUSPENSIONS
On March 5, 2020, HOLLY GAIL CRAMPTON [#05004500], 71, of Houston, received a judgment of partially probated suspension.
The 405th Judicial District Court of Galveston County found that Crampton neglected a legal matter entrusted to her, failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failed to promptly comply with requests for information, failed to explain the legal matter to the extent necessary to permit her client to make informed decisions, failed to decline representation or withdraw when the representation resulted in violation of a disciplinary rule, and violated a disciplinary judgment.
Crampton violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(a)(1), and 8.04(a)(7).
She was ordered to pay $6,714.47 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Crampton has filed an appeal.
Apparently, Hampton's written Judgments are Not for Public Display [PDF's]
On April 1, 2020, ROCHELLE DIANNE DAVIS [#24099669], 30, of Houston, received a one-year fully probated suspension effective May 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020.
An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Davis neglected a legal matter entrusted to her, failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the client’s legal matter, and failed to promptly comply with her reasonable requests for information about the case.
Davis also failed to withdraw from representing her client when Davis’ physical or mental condition materially impaired her fitness to represent her client 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.
Davis violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 8.04(a)(8).
Davis has a Laundry List of judgments, but heck, carry on says the Texas Bar
No Surprise Here, It's Texas Bar's Jeff Vaden
Rest of the state
DISBARMENT
On March 10, 2020, MARIO A. MATA [#13184400], 66, of Austin, was disbarred by an evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee.
The panel found that on or about October 23, 2005, Mata [who ran a website called privatewealthlaw.com according to LIT’s investigations] set up an offshore trust for the complainant.
On August 9, 2013, the complainant deposited $270,000 from the complainant’s mother’s testamentary trust into Mata’s IOLTA. Mata was to transfer the $270,000 from his IOLTA into the Bank Vontobel account, which held the assets for the complainant’s trust.
When the complainant received his January 2014 bank statement, he noticed that Mata never deposited the money into the Bank Vontobel account.
The complainant then hired an attorney who wrote letters to Mata on October 13, 2015, and February 9, 2016, asking for the return of the $270,000. Mata failed to return the funds.
Mata violated Rule 1.14(b).
He was ordered to pay $270,000 in restitution and $11,818.57 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Texas Bar's Henry L. Moore, Presiding Member
RESIGNATION
LIT wrote a detailed article on Thievin’ Lawyer Ringer.
On April 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of G. DAVID RINGER [#16935700], 66, of Dallas.
At the time of Ringer’s resignation, there was one pending matter against him alleging that, in his capacity as volunteer, chairman of the board, and president of a soccer club from the mid-1990s to early 2010, he wrote and signed checks on the club’s checking account to his law firm totaling over $960,000, all without the knowledge or authorization of any officer, board member, or member of the club.
Ringer was not hired to provide, and did not provide, legal services to the club from 2005 to 2010. Ringer obtained loans for the club and executed promissory notes on the club’s behalf with various third parties unrelated to the club, all without the knowledge or authorization of any officer, board member, or member of the club.
On June 7, 2011, Ringer was indicted in Dallas County on two felony counts based on this conduct: theft and misapplication of fiduciary property.
On January 10, 2020, Ringer pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony—misapplication of fiduciary property—was sentenced to 10 years of community supervision, and was ordered to pay $698,584 in restitution.
Ringer violated Rules 8.04(a)(2) and 8.04(a)(3).
SUSPENSIONS
On April 14, 2020, PAUL CRAIG LAIRD II [#11795420], 60, of Irving, agreed to a one-year fully probated suspension effective May 1, 2020.
The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Laird neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to abide by the complainant’s decisions concerning the objectives and general methods of representation, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her case, and failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Laird violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.02(a)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.03(b).
He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Texas Bar's Andrew Gould, Presiding Member
Perry’s one month suspension came and went but she’s still not eligible to practice law in Texas (as at 31 Jan, 2021), we assume due to non-payment of restitution.
On March 29, 2020, NANCY L. PERRY [#24041680], 53, of Round Rock, accepted a one-year partially probated suspension with one month active, effective April 1, 2020, related to three disciplinary cases.
In the first matter, a client hired Perry on February 18, 2015, to represent her interests as a creditor in a bankruptcy case. On January 22, 2016, the client terminated Perry’s services by letter. The letter requested that Perry provide the client with her case file. Perry failed to provide the case file and failed to file a written response to this grievance.
In a second matter, a client hired Perry on August 27, 2016, to represent her in an uncontested divorce. The client paid an advance fee to Perry in the amount of $1,500. Perry prepared and filed a petition for divorce on August 29, 2016. Subsequently, on September 1, 2016, Perry’s license to practice law was administratively suspended due to her failure to pay dues to the State Bar of Texas. Perry failed to notify the client that she was no longer eligible to practice law. While still under an administrative suspension, Perry sent an email to the client on October 25, 2016, advising her that she would begin to draft a divorce decree the following weekend. Thereafter, the client received no further communication from Perry. Perry failed to complete the work she was hired to do and did not return any unearned fees to the complainant. Perry also failed to file a written response to the grievance.
Texas Bar's Susan Burton, Presiding Member
In a third matter, a client hired Perry in December 2016 to represent her as the petitioner in a divorce. The client paid Perry an advanced fee of $4,000 for the representation. Thereafter, Perry failed to file the divorce petition or complete any substantive work on behalf of the client. At the time that Perry accepted the advanced fee and agreed to represent the client, Perry was not authorized to practice law because she was administratively suspended. Perry also failed to file a written response to the grievance.
Perry violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules.
She was ordered to pay $4,950 in restitution and $120.57 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
On February 12, 2020, DEATRIA MECHELE NORFLEET [#15078100], 59, of Arlington, received a three-month fully probated suspension effective February 15, 2020.
An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that on June 6, 2018, Norfleet was hired to represent the complainant’s son on a criminal matter. The complainant’s mother paid an advanced legal fee of $3,750. Norfleet failed to keep the funds in a separate trust account. Norfleet associated with outside counsel to handle the complainant’s criminal representation.
Norfleet agreed to split the fee paid by the complainant with the outside counsel.
However, neither the complainant’s mother nor the complainant agreed to the fee-splitting arrangement. Norfleet failed to explain the criminal matter to the complainant to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Upon request by the complainant’s mother, Norfleet failed to refund advance payments of the fee that had not been earned.
Norfleet violated Rules 1.03(b), 1.04(f)(2), 1.14(a), and 1.15(d).
She was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Texas Attorney Shanon Stanfield
Shanon’s been on the LIT list before. He was ‘fully probated’ in that discipline case too.
On April 28, 2020, SHANON KEITH STANFIELD [#24056738], 36, of Austin, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective June 1, 2020.
An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client in civil litigation matters, Stanfield neglected the cases, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to provide his client with any updates concerning the matters.
Stanfield further failed to file a written response to this complaint as directed. Stanfield violated Rule 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8).
He was ordered to pay $975 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Texas Bar's Jacqueline Wood, Presiding Member
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a 24-month fully probated suspension effective December 15, 2026.
The District 1 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Thering after she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, Thering failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her personal injury matter and failed to promptly comply with the complainant’s reasonable requests for information. Upon conclusion of the complainant’s matter, Thering failed to provide the complainant with a written statement showing the remittance and the method of its determination. Thering failed to safeguard settlement funds, failed to promptly deliver funds to the complainant, and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds. Upon termination of representation, Thering failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Thering violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $23,016 in restitution and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a six-month fully probated suspension, effective December 15, 2028.
The District 1 Grievance Committee found that Thering was hired by the complainant and paid $1,500. Upon termination of the representation, the complainant sent written requests for an accounting, but Thering failed to promptly render same. Thering violated Rule 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a 48-month partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2023, with the first 20 months actively served and the remainder probated.
An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter, the complainant retained Thering for representation in a family law matter and paid Thering $2,250, which was deposited into a non-IOLTA.
Thering neglected the legal matter and did not perform any legal services for the complainant and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The complainant requested a refund of the fee paid, which Thering failed to refund and failed to communicate with the complainant about the matter. Further, Thering did not file a response to the grievance.
In the second matter, Thering was hired to represent the complainant in a breach of contract case and was paid a $1,500 flat fee. The fee was deposited into a non-IOLTA.
Thering failed to reply to the complainant’s numerous requests for an update on the case and for action. Thering failed to file the lawsuit as instructed by his client and failed to provide an accounting of the complainant’s funds.
In the third matter, the complainant retained Thering for representation in a divorce matter and paid Thering a refundable retainer of $1,500, which was deposited into a non-IOLTA.
Once the divorce was final, the complainant made numerous requests for an itemized bill, which went unanswered. Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to provide an accounting of the complainant’s funds. Thering failed to respond to the grievance.
Thering violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).
He was ordered to pay $2,250 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a 40-month partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2023, with the first 20 months actively served and the remainder probated.
An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Thering to represent him in a personal injury claim. Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to keep him advised as to the status of the case. The case settled and Thering failed to notify the complainant that he received the settlement funds, failed to safeguard the funds, failed to disburse the settlement funds to the complainant, failed to pay the Medicare reimbursement lien from the funds, and failed to provide the complainant a written settlement statement.
Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a 40-month partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2023, with the first 20 months actively served and the remainder probated.
An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that Thering represented the complainant in a civil lawsuit and, after a jury trial, the court entered a judgment against the complainant. Shortly thereafter, the complainant remitted payment of the judgment to Thering and upon receiving funds in which a third party had an interest, Thering failed to safeguard the funds, failed to promptly notify the opposing party, and failed to promptly deliver the funds to the opposing party.
Over a period of four months, Thering partially paid the judgment to the opposing party.
Further, Thering failed to communicate with the complainant about the legal matter. Thering violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Thievin' Thering
“Since opening his office in October 2008, Daniel Thering has quadrupled in size to own one of the larger firms in Frisco, Texas. In that brief timeframe, his office opened over 700 cases and obtained twenty six figure settlements. Mr. Thering currently runs a docket full of large loss claims including numerous medical malpractice wrongful death cases. His attention to his clients’ cases is evidenced by the millions of dollars he recovered on their behalf. Daniel Thering is readily available to assist individuals seriously injured by the negligent acts of others.” – Daniel Thering, Attorney at Thering & Associates, PLLC (LinkedIn)
On March 18, 2020, DANIEL ROBERT THERING [#24042023], 43, of Austin, received a 48-month active suspension effective March 15, 2020. The District 1 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter, the complainant hired Thering to represent him in connection with a personal injury claim. After the case settled, Thering deposited the settlement funds into a non-IOLTA and sent the complainant a partial settlement check, after multiple inquiries by the complainant about the status of the settlement.
Upon conclusion of the case, Thering failed to provide the complainant a written settlement statement. Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to safeguard the funds and to promptly deliver them to the complainant. Further, Thering failed to provide an accounting of the settlement funds.
In the second matter, the complainant hired Thering to represent her and her husband in connection with a personal injury claim. The case settled and Thering sent the complainant a partial settlement check. Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to provide a written settlement statement. Further, Thering failed to provide an accounting of the settlement funds.
In the third matter, the complainant hired Thering to represent her in a personal injury matter. After the case settled, Thering deposited the settlement funds into a non-IOLTA but did not notify the complainant that he had received the funds. The complainant sent numerous emails requesting an update on the settlement funds. Thereafter, Thering sent the complainant a check as a “settlement advance” from another non-IOLTA and represented to the complainant that he was trying to settle post-settlement liens. Thering failed to notify the complainant that her settlement funds were received, failed to promptly deliver the settlement funds to the complainant, failed to safeguard the funds, and failed to account for the settlement funds. Further, Thering misrepresented to the complainant that he was working to settle medical liens and could not disburse the settlement funds, even though the complainant’s medical bills had already been paid. Thering did not respond to the grievance.
In the fourth matter, the complainant hired Thering to represent him in a personal injury claim. After filing the lawsuit on the complainant’s behalf, Thering failed to keep the complainant informed about the status of the legal matter and would not respond to reasonable requests for information.
Further, Thering neglected the legal matter by failing to respond to the discovery requests, failing to notify the complainant of a hearing, and failing to appear at the hearing. Thering failed to release funds received by him to the complainant and has failed to account for the funds. Upon conclusion of the case, Thering failed to provide the complainant a written settlement statement. Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8).
He was ordered to pay $51,252 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Texas Lawyer Daniel Thering's List of Suspensions and Discipline
PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
Fabricating Evidence Warrants only a Public Reprimand According to the Texas Bar.
On February 5, 2020, KEVIN W. BOYD [#02774020], 65, of Austin, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that in July 2013, the complainant hired Boyd to represent him in an immigration matter, which included a removal proceeding.
The complainant paid Boyd a total of $2,064 for the representation.
During the representation, Boyd failed to appear at the complainant’s removal hearing on September 23, 2015, because Boyd’s legal assistant failed to calendar the hearing after receiving notice. Subsequently, the court issued an order for the complainant’s removal.
In addition, Boyd’s legal assistant failed to inform Boyd of the complainant’s removal when Boyd’s office first received the removal order in October 2015.
Instead, Boyd’s legal assistant fabricated a document indicating the complainant’s matter was reset to November 29, 2019, and sent a copy of said document to the complainant.
Boyd’s failure to supervise his legal assistant enabled her to send the complainant the fabricated reset notice, which precluded the complainant from obtaining the relief for which he initially retained Boyd. Boyd violated Rule 5.03(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
He was ordered to pay $2,064 in restitution and $225 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
The Texas Bar's Rep; A Mediator, A fmr Judge and W. Virginia State Bar Member
Witcher McCullough, located in Austin, Texas, a lawyer for over 40 years, has mediated over 1000 cases in Texas and throughout the United States. He began incorporating mediation into his practice in 1992. McCullough has also served as an arbitration advocate in numerous arbitration cases starting in the early 1970’s, and is also an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association. The cases in which he has been involved as both an advocate and an ADR professional have ranged from complex commercial cases, employment law, personal injury, securities (customer/broker-dealer disputes), real estate construction and development, intellectual property disputes, to many other legal matters. He has mediated complex cases for NASD/ FINRA where he has been an approved mediator since 1996. McCullough enjoys extensive traveling as part of providing ADR services, and establishes a reasonable, fixed fee (including travel expenses) at the engagement stage to avoid any later unnecessary surprises.
McCullough is a fifth generation lawyer from West Virginia who moved to Texas immediately upon graduation from law school to begin his practice in 1970. His litigation practice started as a Federal Prosecutor in Houston where he ultimately received an appointment as a Special Attorney-In-Charge over a combined law enforcement strike force. In 1982, he was voted the “most qualified” by various Bar Polls in a judicial race for the Court of Appeals.
He resided in Houston until 1987 when he moved to Austin, Texas to continue his association with the law firm of Baker Botts. He has spent a substantial amount of his career with that firm, as well as with Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay; Diamond McCarthy; and most recently with Haynes and Boone, LLP before opening McCulloughADR in 2009.
McCullough is an active member of the State Bar of Texas and an inactive member of the State Bar of West Virginia. He is admitted to practice before all U.S. District Courts in Texas and numerous U.S. District Courts in other states as well as the United States Supreme Court. His professionalism has been recognized by the Texas Supreme Court by its appointment of him to its Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for nine years, three of which he was appointed its Chair. He remains an ex officio member.
The Presidents of the State Bar of Texas have appointed him to its Houston and Austin Grievance Committees for 24 years and to the Texas Bar President’s Task Force for the Unauthorized Practice of Law for 3 years.
McCullough has tried cases in State and Federal Court, including successfully arguing before the Texas Supreme Court and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
McCullough was presented with the Albert Nelson Lifetime Achievement Award from Marquis Who’s Who in 2018.
McCullough is a past member of the Board of Directors for Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and remains active with various other charitable organizations. He graduated from Stetson University with a B.A. degree in English in 1967, and he has served as a member of its Alumni Board of Directors, District Chair for Texas and Oklahoma. He earned his J.D. degree from West Virginia University in 1970.
McCullough resides in Austin, Texas, where he also served as a Relief Austin Municipal Judge (2012-2018).
On February 24, 2020, MELISSA ANN DEUTSCH [#24063946], 38, of Austin, received a public reprimand.
An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainant paid Deutsch $3,000 to represent a special needs trust in the partition of certain real property.
The complainant is the trustee of the trust. After June 2014, Deutsch performed no legal work on the case except for filing a motion to retain in 2016, which was granted.
During the representation, Deutsch frequently failed to respond to telephone calls and emails wherein the complainant requested information regarding the status of the case. On or before March 2016,
Deutsch closed her law practice without notice to the complainant.
Subsequently, Deutsch told the complainant that she would provide the complainant with her file and an invoice and refund any unused fees. However, Deutsch failed to provide the file, invoice, or refund until after receiving notice of the grievance a year later.
Deutsch violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
She was ordered to pay $766.76 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Post Edited: Judge Not Protected by Immunity Defense When It’s a Perversion of Justice https://t.co/pX85ELsZfF
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) January 14, 2021
On March 21, 2020, STEVEN TODD HAYDEN [#24006245], 49, of Southlake, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Hayden on March 22, 2018, for a criminal law matter.
On or about September 28, 2018, the district attorney offered Hayden a plea deal of five years’ probation to resolve the complainant’s case; Hayden did not promptly present this plea offer to the complainant. Hayden finally disclosed the plea deal to the complainant on or about October 26, 2018, and Kelly accepted the plea deal of five years’ probation on October 30, 2018.
Further, Hayden revealed confidential information to the complainant about another client of Hayden’s without the client’s consent.
Hayden violated Rules 1.03(b) and 1.05(b)(1)(ii).
He was ordered to pay $2,735 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Berleth’s Misconduct Warranted Disciplinary Action and Criminal Referral. Judge Sim Lake Rejected All.
Texas Lawyer Berleth’s misconduct mirrors a case we highlighted on LIF, the Allan Campbell Pen Series. Judge Lake’s Reprimand is Offensive.
Texas Lawyer Robert Berleth Gives ‘Bad Advice’ to Dupe a Client and Allegedly Steal a Truck
Berleth abuses his status as a lawyer to manipulate this unwitting client into giving him title to property by fraudulent inducement.
Texas Lawyer Robert Berleth and His Law Firm are in Violation of the Texas Finance Code
Writ of Garnishment to Collect $642,750 and $985,146, a total sum of $1,627,896 by a rogue, unlicensed Texas law firm, as receiver.
Minnesota: “The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility recommends that the Court suspend respondent [Texas Attorney] Alfonso Kennard for a minimum of 30 days for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law on numerous occasions and failing to cooperate…” https://t.co/VqyWok82ek pic.twitter.com/5IIMWtIBMj
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) January 30, 2021
