Beaumont lawyers got a painful reminder on March 14 of how merely working around a courthouse can put their lives in danger. That’s when police say a man on trial produced a gun and opened fire outside the Jefferson County Courthouse. Jefferson County Sheriff Mitch Woods told reporters at a press conference that day that 41-year-old Bartholomew Granger was arrested for murder after a shooting rampage left a 79-year-old bystander dead. Rife Kimler , a Beaumont solo who represents Granger, did not return a call seeking comment. Three other people also were injured in the incident, Woods said of the shooting, which occurred during a morning break in Granger’s trial. “There had been testimony in that case yesterday [March 13]. There was testimony scheduled to resume at 1 o’clock. Two of the shooting victims were witnesses. One of the shooting victims was Granger’s daughter,” Woods said during the press conference. “And she had already testified yesterday in the trial and was scheduled to resume” later in the day, Woods said. Woods alleged Granger also was involved in a shootout with police before he was taken into custody. Granger’s daughter survived the shooting, but as of presstime, she was still in critical condition, Beaumont Police officer Carol Riley wrote in a press release. James Makin , a Beaumont criminal-defense solo who left the courthouse minutes before the shooting occurred, says his daughter, who works in the Jefferson County Clerk’s Office, helped a woman who had been shot and was able to run into the clerk’s office for help. Beaumont solo Mike Getz says he was leaving the courthouse just as the shooting occurred. “I was almost right in the middle of it. I had just finished a hearing when I saw a bunch of bailiffs and deputies were running out with their guns drawn,” says Getz, who spoke with police officers investigating the shooting on March 14. Jefferson County officials had done their best to ensure the courthouse is safe by posting metal detectors at each entrance, Getz says. “It’s good to have a deterrent. But history has shown if they are going to do it, they’ll do it,” says Getz, noting the courthouse shooting that occurred in Tulsa, Okla., recently. “I don’t know what else could have been done to avoid this, but I know those questions will be asked.”
Stanford Fee Request
The saga of R. Allen Stanford and the related litigation continues to generate fees for lawyers, not just in the criminal case but also in a related civil case. On March 9, Ralph Janvey , the court-appointed receiver for the Stanford estate, filed a motion for approval of his 16th interim fee application and brief in support in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. In the motion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd. et al. , Janvey seeks court approval to pay attorneys and professional firms interim fees of $1.6 million for invoices from Oct. 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2011. Three-month totals for the law firms involved are $43,166 for Janvey’s firm, Krage & Janvey ; $902,232 for Baker Botts , counsel to the receiver; and $44,000 for Thompson & Knight , also counsel to the receiver. The motion concludes: “The fees and expenses requested by the Receiver are necessarily substantial, but . . . the Receiver expects to continue reducing professional costs where it is possible to do so consistent with his duties.” In an email, Baker Botts partner Kevin Sadler of San Antonio, who signed the motion, notes that Baker Botts has been paid $18.9 million for the Stanford matters it worked on from February 2009, when Stanford was first arrested and the litigation began, through September 2011, the end of the time period before the time span the March 9 motion covers. During that same time period, Krage & Janvey received $1.16 million, and Thompson & Knight received $3.13 million, Sadler writes. Sadler also writes that the court is “holding back” 20 percent of fees as a discount across the board but the court may decide at a later date whether firms get paid that additional percentage. Ralph Janvey did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Thompson & Knight partner Richard Roper , who represents the receiver, declines comment.
