Laws In Texas

TXBODA.ORG: Texas Attorney Complaint(s) – The Burkes Pending Decision(s) after Dismissal By the State Bar of Texas CDC

Burke v Hopkins Complaint – State Bar of Texas and Appeal to BODA (2019)

“The night before Carter was to testify against Graves, Carter told Sebesta that he had committed the murders alone. This statement necessarily excluded Graves as a participant in the murders. Sebesta never disclosed this information to the defense. This failure to disclose violated Disciplinary Rule 3.09(d).”

V. Conclusion
“The judgment of disbarment is affirmed.”

BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, No. 56406, CHARLES J. SEBESTA, JR. V. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, On Appeal from the Evidentiary Panel for the State Bar of Texas District 08-2 SBOT Case No. 201400539

201903098  Joanna Burke v. Mark Daniel Hopkins;  BODA #62210;  July 9th, 2019

The Board of Disciplinary Appeals received your appeal from the dismissal of your grievance. The Board will obtain a copy of your grievance from the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, and three Board members will read it and decide whether the appeal alleges a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Board decides the appeals in conference; no hearing is held. The Board considers only the material in the grievance that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel reviewed. Please do not send any additional information concerning the grievance to the Board. We will notify both parties in writing of the Board’s decision, which usually takes about a month.

A letter with this information has also been sent to you via regular mail, with a copy going to the attorney.

Jackie Truitt
Executive Assistant
Board of Disciplinary Appeals
PO Box 12426
Austin, TX 78711
512-427-1578

201903099   Joanna Burke v. Shelley Luan Hopkins;   BODA #62211; July 9th, 2019

The Board of Disciplinary Appeals received your appeal from the dismissal of your grievance. The Board will obtain a copy of your grievance from the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, and three Board members will read it and decide whether the appeal alleges a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Board decides the appeals in conference; no hearing is held. The Board considers only the material in the grievance that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel reviewed. Please do not send any additional information concerning the grievance to the Board. We will notify both parties in writing of the Board’s decision, which usually takes about a month.

A letter with this information has also been sent to you via regular mail, with a copy going to the attorney.

Jackie Truitt
Executive Assistant
Board of Disciplinary Appeals
PO Box 12426
Austin, TX 78711
512-427-1578

201903100   John Burke v. Mark Daniel Hopkins; BODA   #62212;  July 9th, 2019

The Board of Disciplinary Appeals received your appeal from the dismissal of your grievance. The Board will obtain a copy of your grievance from the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, and three Board members will read it and decide whether the appeal alleges a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Board decides the appeals in conference; no hearing is held. The Board considers only the material in the grievance that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel reviewed. Please do not send any additional information concerning the grievance to the Board. We will notify both parties in writing of the Board’s decision, which usually takes about a month.

A letter with this information has also been sent to you via regular mail, with a copy going to the attorney.

Jackie Truitt
Executive Assistant
Board of Disciplinary Appeals
PO Box 12426
Austin, TX 78711
512-427-1578

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
WIENER, Circuit Judge, April 3, 2019
The 5th Circuit Wiener Quote is repeated against Burkes’.
Hopkins Uses “Ad Hominem” in filing; April 17, 2019

201903101   John Burke v. Shelley Luan Hopkins;   BODA #62213; July 9th, 2019

The Board of Disciplinary Appeals received your appeal from the dismissal of your grievance. The Board will obtain a copy of your grievance from the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, and three Board members will read it and decide whether the appeal alleges a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Board decides the appeals in conference; no hearing is held. The Board considers only the material in the grievance that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel reviewed. Please do not send any additional information concerning the grievance to the Board. We will notify both parties in writing of the Board’s decision, which usually takes about a month.

A letter with this information has also been sent to you via regular mail, with a copy going to the attorney.

Jackie Truitt
Executive Assistant
Board of Disciplinary Appeals
PO Box 12426
Austin, TX 78711
512-427-1578

 Joanna Burke; John Burke v. Mark Hopkins; Shelley Luan Hopkins;   State Bar of Texas CDC Complaint; May 7th, 2019

After the State Bar of Texas dismissed the complaint(s), the Burkes’ sent the following correspondence and copied the following agencies etc.

Not one response was received prior to filing the BODA Appeal.

Special Prosecutor

Attn: John Wesley Raley
1800 Augusta Drive, Suite 300
Houston TX 77057
Email; jraley@raleybowick.com

Sunset Advisory Commission

Email: sunset@sunset.texas.gov

Grievance Oversight Committee

Email; info@txgoc.com

Texas House of Representatives

Fax: (512) 463-5896

Texas Office of the Attorney General

Texas Office of the Solicitor General
Attn: Kyle D. Hawkins
Fax: (512) 427-4169

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, D.C. 20544
By: USPS Priority Mail

Ref: #RESTORETX-ETHICS

June 18, 2019

State Bar of Texas
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Attn: Eric Hsu
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
PO Box 12487
Austin, TX 78711
Fax: (512) 427-4167

Dear Mr Hsu

LEGAL ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST MARK HOPKINS & SHELLEY HOPKINS of HOPKINS LAW, PLLC, AUSTIN, TEXAS – Ref: #201903101 et al.

We refer to your letter dismissing our complaint.  We are currently considering the options which you provide in your letter, e.g. direct appeal or BODA appeal. This letter is not seeking either option right now, what we would request, is time-sensitive answers to the following questions.

As detailed in our extensive complaint, we studied the laws before we submitted the complaint and we cannot agree with your unfathomable decision. Without going into every detail, we wish to focus on one particular grievance in our complaint: the malicious concealment of evidence as admitted on the record by Mark Daniel Hopkins.

In quick summary and to aid Mr Raley and those who we have copied herein who are unfamiliar with the general background to this case, the Burkes obtained judgment against Deutsche Bank in a foreclosure civil action in 2015 (after a bench trial where Deutsche Bank presented zero evidence and no witnesses).

Hopkins was then appointed to appeal the case as ‘first chair’ for Barrett Daffin Frappin Turner & Engel, LLP (“BDF”).  First, Hopkins tried unsuccessfully to have the judgment reversed in favor of the bank. Then Hopkins, dissatisfied with the Judge, appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

However, when he took the case, he did so in full knowledge that the Burkes did not declare an income of $125k per annum and which the bank forged onto the mortgage application. Nonetheless, he withheld the banks mortgage file proving this fact e.g. that the Burkes’ income on file in no way amounted to the $125k shown on the application, which consisted of a small annual UK pension, thus confirming the bank fraud and forgery. Hopkins admitted on the record to withholding this file and evidence intentionally.

Hopkins argues (in court motions in ongoing litigation) that this is not relevant as “the bench trial was over and evidence closed before he started the appeal”.  But that is misguided. Hopkins took over the case after the bench trial to appeal it but not before trying to open the case to “add evidence” (a newly created ‘wet ink note’ that was absent for 4.5 years prior to the bench trial, Hopkins now had in his personal possession).

As your office and code of ethics opines, an attorney that is aware of fraud prior to appointment has a duty not to take the case and also tell the client that they should not appeal. In other words, not to knowingly become a party to fraud and to dissuade the client from proceeding. In this case, the record clearly shows the lender forged the mortgage application to add just enough income necessary to meet underwriting requirements for the loan.

As the record shows, there was no such ethical refusal by Hopkins. As outlined in the complaint, his wife, (Shelley Luan Hopkins, nee Douglass) worked at BDF as head of litigation in the foreclosure department since the start of the legal proceedings in April 2011 and was in control of the Burkes’ case throughout her time at BDF before marrying Hopkins and moving to his ‘firm’, a related entity of BDF created as a shell company.

Hopkins earns all his referrals and income directly from BDF and BDF have offices beside his own in Juniper Place, Austin, Texas. (We enclose Doc. 40, the last filing by the Burkes in the case Burke v Hopkins et al, Case 4:18-cv-04543 in SDTX District Court, Houston, requesting Hopkins and 2 named BDF directors be removed from the proposed list of ‘expert witnesses’ based on the ethical violations and legal arguments presented therein).

Furthermore, Deutsche Bank is a ‘straw man’ [and invisible] in this civil action as we’ve discussed in the complaint.

In summary, Shelley Hopkins is a co-conspirator as she was as an attorney during the Deutsche Bank case while at BDF and again at Hopkins Law, PLLC.

We now address why Mr Raley is included in this letter. We read with interest the article at law.com[1] which included a copy of the 39 page Grievance Letter by your offices against former Assistant District Attorney Mr Rizzo, dated 4th June, 2019. We show below an extract from that grievance regarding the Courts’ statement discussing the concealment of evidence in Browns’ case;

As you can see, the Court incorrectly decided the evidence presented was not a matter of fraud or bad faith. Your Offices’ decision to dismiss is also in error. It indicates that our complaint did not meet the necessary standards of any disciplinary rule, which is legally and factually not true.

Unlike Mr Brown, we were not incarcerated nor did we face death row (and we cannot expect to understand the totality of that exceptional sufferance, which must have been quite horrific) but it has sure felt like an order of confinement. This whole ordeal has materially affected our lives in a negative way.

We are senior citizens in our eighties, and as documented in court records, our health has been materially affected by this lengthy litigation and a foreclosure judgment was recorded in November 2018 against our homestead (after 2 appeals by Hopkins). This despite the lender fraud and lawyer misconduct.

Reverting back to the Raley/Rizzo case, we do, however, believe our civil case and circumstances are very similar to the Rizzo grievance, namely the withholding of evidence.

In summary, we are asking for a specific and timely answer as to how your office can file a grievance against Rizzo for withholding evidence, yet reject our similar complaint of withholding evidence, as admitted by Hopkins on the record, and which has resulted in a fraud-induced order of foreclosure against the Burkes’?

This information is requested prior to deciding on which way to proceed in this matter and consideration of our legal rights per State of Texas laws and Constitution.

We look forward to a timely response. If you have any comments, questions or concerns related to the above, or our complaint, please contact us at the information shown below. Due to our age, we prefer communications via email or fax, as we find phone conversations difficult due to hearing impairment (and it is also faster than regular postal mail considering your noted time restraints in this matter).

Respectfully

Joanna Burke & John Burke

[8.04] Misconduct (b) As used in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule, serious crime means barratry; any felony involving moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing crimes.

– Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

[1] See; https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2019/06/07/houston-ex-prosecutor-faces-grievance-for-allegedly-helping-send-innocent-man-to-death-row/

3 Comments

Most Popular

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 Laws In Texas. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top