Robert G. “Bob” Vial observed his 85th birthday on Oct. 6 in the same place he can be found almost every day: his downtown Dallas law office. Vial, a solo, says he goes to the office every day, including Saturdays and Sundays. However, Vial says he usually does not arrive at the office until 2 p.m. on Saturdays, because he likes to play golf on Saturday mornings. Vial says an independent streak led him into the practice of law. During World War II, the 18-year-old Vial served in the U.S. Army as a radio infantryman. He was in the Battle of the Bulge, which was fought during the winter months of 1944 and 1945, as well as in two other battles. Among the things Vial remembers best about his military service are the snow and cold he and other American soldiers had to endure and constantly having to follow orders. “I wanted to get as far away as possible from people telling me what to do and when to do it,” Vial says. “Representing people in court proceedings looked to me a good way to develop independence.” Vial, who grew up in Indiana and received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, also decided he wanted to get away from cold winters. “I made a decision in the spring of 1947 that I was going somewhere in the South,” he says. Vial says he was planning to attend the University of Texas School of Law but an ice storm forced him to stay in Dallas for a couple of weeks. He ended up not driving on to Austin but, instead, enrolled in Southern Methodist University School of Law in February 1948 and graduated in 1950. Vial says the State Bar of Texas issued him a bar card on Sept. 18, 1950, and he still carries the same card. “My bar card is practically an antique,” he says. Vial says he started practicing law as a solo but presented his services to older lawyers who did not want to take their cases to trial. “My pitch was, ‘I’m back from World War II, and I’m your man for the courthouse,’ ” he says. His docket was full, but he ended his solo practice on Aug. 10, 1957, when he joined Henry Akin Jr. to launch Akin & Vial in Dallas. Vial says the firm handled mostly insurance defense cases. In 1972, after Akin and Vial ended their partnership, the firm became Vial Hamilton Koch & Knox . The firm, which had offices in Houston and New Orleans as well as in Dallas, had about 130 lawyers at one time, Vial says. In 2000 he decided to become a solo again, although Vial Hamilton continued as a firm until 2007, he says. He typically has 20 to 25 cases at any one time, and his caseload includes anything from contested probate matters to litigation brought by workers injured on the job at work sites that do not participate in the state workers’ compensation insurance system. “I try two, three, maybe four cases a year,” Vial says. Trying a case forces a lawyer to take something that is complex and maybe life-changing for an injured employee and boil it down to where three or four witnesses can make the case, he says. “I love trial work.”
Stay on Track
The Texas Supreme Court is willing to give the State Bar of Texas board of directors more time to make recommendations on proposed amendments to the disciplinary rules for lawyers — but not as much time as the board had requested. Justice Phil Johnson , the Supreme Court’s liaison for the rules, says the court notified the State Bar by letter Oct. 6 that the court would like the Bar board to submit recommendations by Nov. 8 on all the proposed changes in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, a draft ballot and the timeline for a referendum that will give lawyers a say on the rules. In an Oct. 1 letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson , State Bar president Terry Tottenham reported the Bar board’s recommendations that all the proposed amendments to the disciplinary rules be submitted for a referendum with the exception of proposed Rules 1.06-1.09, which address conflicts of interest. Among the rules the Bar board approved at its Oct. 1 meeting is the proposed new no-sex-with-clients rule that has stirred some controversy. The Bar board approved proposed new language for Rule 1.13 that would prohibit lawyers from soliciting or accepting sexual relations as payment of fees or expenses. As originally proposed, Rule 1.13 covered only fees. The Bar board also approved new language in the interpretive comments for Rule 1.13, which reads: “The absence of prejudice to the client may be considered as a factor in determining whether there is a violation of the rule. This rule should not be used tactically by an adverse party to interfere with the client-lawyer relationship or to harass an opposing party or lawyer.” While debate over the no-sex-with-clients rule has grabbed media attention, the conflicts rules caused Bar board members the most consternation at their recent meeting. According to Tottenham’s letter, the Bar board recommended that a 30-day period be set aside for interested parties to address concerns about the conflicts rules and suggest language “to correct any perceived shortcomings” in the proposed language of those rules. Tottenham, of counsel at Fulbright & Jaworski in Austin, wrote that the Bar board would make a final recommendation on the conflicts rules during its Jan. 28, 2011, meeting. However, Johnson says the Supreme Court justices think it would be unwise to wait that long. “If we put this back to the end of January and then some recommendations come up for change, we’ll just be pushing this back and back and back,” Johnson says. He says that if the Bar board can make its recommendations by Nov. 8, the court believes the referendum could be held in January 2011. Tottenham says, “We’ve worked collaboratively with the court up to this point and will continue to do so and hope we can meet that deadline.” Can the Bar board finalize its recommendations by Nov. 8? Tottenham says he believes the board can. “A lot of people have worked a long time on this,” Tottenham says of the proposed rule changes.
