Font Size: 
Personal Injury Lawyer Runs TV Ads Questioning Competitor's Credentials
Texas Lawyer
October 09, 2007
Tired of waiting for the State Bar of Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee to respond to a complaint he filed in May, Corpus Christi, Texas, plaintiffs personal injury lawyer Thomas J. Henry began running television advertisements on Sept. 28 questioning the credentials of Mauricio Celis, a partner in CGT Law Group International in Corpus Christi, which also represents plaintiffs.
In the 30-second commercial, which he says he booked on the Corpus Christi affiliates of four networks, Henry alleges Celis is not licensed as a lawyer in Texas or anywhere in the world, and Henry asks CGT clients to contact him.
"I'm Thomas J. Henry. I proudly display my law license," Henry says in the commercial, according to an affidavit filed with the court related to a temporary restraining order involving the ads. "However, Mauricio Celis with the law firm of CGT International Law Group does not have a law license in the state of Texas, nor does he have a license to practice law anywhere in the world. If you have hired this law firm, you may be entitled to a refund of attorney's fees paid. Contact me immediately."
But Rene Flores, a solo practitioner in Corpus Christi who represents Celis, disputes Henry's ad and says Celis is licensed to practice law in Mexico but not licensed in Texas or anywhere in the United States.
The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPLC) now is investigating Henry's complaint, and Celis' licensing status is not only at issue with Henry but also in a fee-dispute suit filed in the 49th District Court in Zapata County. In that suit, plaintiff Gonzalez & Associates Law Firm of McAllen seeks sanctions against Celis for allegedly failing to comply with a judge's order to provide written discovery related to his license to practice law.
In the original petition in Gonzalez & Associates Law Firm P.C., et al. v. Chris Pinedo, et al., filed in 2006, the McAllen, Texas, firm and client Priscilla De Los Santos allege Celis, CGT and CGT partner Pinedo -- who the State Bar of Texas Web site lists as T. Christopher Pinedo -- interfered with Gonzalez & Associates' contract with De Los Santos to handle litigation filed over a June 2004 house fire in Zapata County in which a number of members of De Los Santos' family died or sustained burns. In the petition the plaintiffs claim the defendants contacted De Los Santos. But in a counterclaim, CGT Law Group International denies it interfered with the plaintiffs' contract with De Los Santos and alleges Gonzalez & Associates interfered with its contract with De Los Santos.
Celis did not return two telephone calls seeking comment before presstime on Oct. 4.
In his May complaint with the UPLC, Henry alleges that Celis, a principal of CGT Law Group International, is not licensed to practice law in Texas, has "indicated he is authorized to practice law in Mexico" and has "associated" with licensed attorneys in Texas through CGT. Henry alleges that licensed attorneys are not authorized to split fees with a non-attorney. He asks the UPLC to determine if Celis is licensed to practice law in the United States or in Mexico and to determine if other lawyers are splitting fees with Celis, either through CGT or through referral fees.
Leland de la Garza, a partner in Shackelford Melton & McKinley in Dallas and a member of the UPLC, says an investigation is ongoing into Henry's complaint.
Mark Ticer, a Dallas lawyer who has handled several UPLC investigations over 15 years and who is a former member of the UPLC Dallas subcommittee, confirms the UPLC recently appointed him to investigate Henry's complaint about Celis. He says Celis and several lawyers at CGT were notified on Oct. 2 of the investigation. UPLC chairman Rodney Gilstrap of Smith & Gilstrap in Marshall, Texas, says Ticer was assigned to the Corpus Christi UPLC subcommittee.
Ticer, of the Law Office of Mark A. Ticer, declines to discuss the Celis investigation.
However, Ticer confirms that it is unlawful in Texas for lawyers to share fees with nonlawyers. Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 5.04 states that a lawyer or firm shall not share or promise to share legal fees with a nonlawyer under most circumstances and a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer to practice law.
The Web site for CGT Law Group International does not list the attorneys at the firm. However, according to materials Henry submitted with his letter, including printouts of lawyer biographies formerly on the Web site, attorneys at CGT include Douglas Gwyther and Pinedo. The State Bar Web site lists Gwyther and Pinedo as practicing at CGT. Gwyther declines comment, and Pinedo did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
TAKING TO THE AIRWAVES
Henry says he is pleased to hear the UPLC investigation has started. But recently, he says he was so frustrated with the UPLC that he decided to start running the ad campaign about Celis on the Corpus Christi television stations. Henry says he paid for ads to run on the CBS, NBC and ABC affiliates during news broadcasts and more frequently on Univision. He says he's prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the ads.
Henry, of the Law Offices of Thomas J. Henry, says the commercials started running the afternoon of Friday, Sept. 28. At 7 p.m. on Sept. 28, 148th District Judge Marisela Saldana of Nueces County signed a temporary restraining order obtained by Celis to prevent Henry and KRIS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Corpus Christi, from running the advertisements.
Robert Johnson, a solo practitioner in Corpus Christi who represents KRIS, says the NBC affiliate stopped running the commercials on Friday night, once it received a copy of the TRO. Henry says he received a copy of the TRO the morning of Oct. 1, and he then notified his media buyer to halt the ads.
On Oct. 2, Henry and KRIS each filed a Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order. A hearing on those motions was scheduled for Oct. 4, but Mauricio Celis v. Thomas J. Henry, et al. was assigned to 347th District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, and she recused herself on Oct. 3. William Christian, a partner in Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody in Austin who represents Henry in the advertising dispute, says Ramos did not state a reason for her recusal in her order.
Judge Manuel Banales, presiding judge of the 5th Administrative Judicial Region, assigned the case to 357th District Judge Leonel Alejandro of Cameron County. The hearing is rescheduled for Oct. 10.
Flores says Celis will respond to Henry's allegations in court.
Flores maintains that Henry has a "personal vendetta" against Celis that goes back years. Flores says Celis used to work for Henry as an investigator, but Henry says Celis never worked him.
"Not at all," Henry says referring to the alleged vendetta.
In his Sept. 28 Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction, Celis alleges that KRIS-TV began running an ad that day that incorrectly stated he "does not have the legal right to represent people in Texas." Celis alleges the ad's assertion is "highly damaging" to his reputation, character and business and that the ad places him in a false light.
Celis further alleges that he is a partner in CGT Law Group International and has a "legal right" to represent people in Texas and across the United States.
But in his motion to dissolve the TRO, Henry alleges Celis misstates the content of the advertisement.
"All of the facts stated in this advertisement are true. Most particularly, Plaintiff does not have a law license in the State of Texas. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, contend otherwise," Henry alleges (emphasis in original). "Because all of the facts stated in the advertisement are true, there is no basis for enjoining the television advertisement."
Henry also alleges the court order stopping his ad campaign is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
"For at least 80 years, the law has been clear. It's not even a close case," says James Hemphill, a partner in Graves Dougherty in Austin who represents Henry in the advertising conflict, claiming that the TRO is unconstitutional.
Alleging in his motion to dissolve that Celis does not have the legal right to represent people in Texas, Henry cites opinions he obtained from three "eminent authorities": Craig Enoch, a retired justice of the Texas Supreme Court and now a shareholder in Winstead; Michael Ariens, an ethics professor at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio; and George W. Jones, a partner in Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C.
"All three independently and emphatically reached the conclusion that Mr. Celis is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, notwithstanding his participating in the CGT Law Group International," Henry alleges in the motion.
Henry also notes in his motion to dissolve that there are "procedural deficiencies" in the TRO. Celis' application in Celis v. Henry and a supporting affidavit from Celis are unsigned although file stamped on Sept. 28. Henry alleges that means they are inadequate to establish Celis' right to a TRO. He also notes Celis' application failed to state any cause of action.
Similarly, KRIS alleges in its motion to dissolve that the pleading used to obtain the TRO was not signed, sworn to or verified, and it was not accompanied by a signed or properly verified affidavit, so "insufficient evidence" was presented to Saldana to authorize the TRO.
KRIS also alleges that the order granting the TRO does not state with required specificity the alleged injury to Celis caused by the ads, why it is irreparable or why the TRO was granted without notice.
KRIS alleges that if the TRO is not dissolved, the $1,000 bond Celis posted is "grossly insufficient" to adequately compensate it for the money it is losing by not being able to run Henry's commercials, and the station asks that the bond be increased to at least $25,000.
NEW CLIENTS
Henry says he started wondering whether Celis is a licensed attorney a couple years ago, after he heard about Corpus Christi's CGT Law Group International.
Henry says more than one person who may be former or current clients of CGT called his office after the TV ads began running on Sept. 28. He declines to say if he intends to sign them as clients to seek fee forfeiture on their behalf from CGT or Celis.
Meanwhile, in the Zapata County suit, plaintiff Gonzalez & Associates filed a Second Motion to Compel and for Sanctions on Oct. 4. In that motion, Gonzalez & Associates alleges Celis testified in a deposition that he is a licensed attorney in Mexico, but he admits he has no cedula -- professional license. Celis testified at a hearing in the case in May that a cedula is not required to practice law in Mexico.
But Gonzalez & Associates alleges in the motion, "In fact, under Mexican Civil Code, it is a crime to practice law for profit without a 'cedula.'"
Gonzalez & Associates seeks an order striking all of Celis' pleadings in Gonzalez & Associates v. Pinedo because of Celis' alleged "flagrant disregard for the discovery rules" by providing "evasive, vague, misleading and incomplete" responses to discovery.
"This case is clearly one of those exceptional cases where death penalty sanctions are not only warranted, but compelled. Celis, a glorified case runner, pretending to be a lawyer, asserting a bogus claim for attorneys fees, is the height of arrogance," Gonzalez & Associates alleges in the motion. "Celis is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and illegally seeks to steal and extort attorneys fees from other lawyers including the Plaintiff."
An attorney for Celis in the Zapata County suit, Andrew M. Greenwell, a partner in Harris & Greenwell in Corpus Christi, says the motion is meritless and Celis will file a response.
