Just when Fred Biery , chief judge of the Western District of Texas, thought he’d rid himself of Schultz, et al. v Medina Valley Independent School District , he issued yet another order in the case. Schultz is the highly emotional school prayer case that settled earlier this year, but not until after Biery had received death threats over his handling of the case. On March 19, Biery issued what he titled a “Non-Kumbaya Order,” a response to the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement in the case. That settlement agreement, which Biery approved Feb. 9, contained a nondisparagement provision that states, “School District Personnel will not disparage the plaintiffs.” Biery writes in the order that, hours after he approved the settlement, the MVISD superintendent gave a televised interview and referred to the suit as a “witch hunt” and stated “inaccurately” that the plaintiffs “wanted our teachers to stop wearing crosses.” Biery also notes in his order that one of the directors of the high school marching band posted a Feb. 19 comment on Facebook that said, “[d]on’t get me started on the lies and false accusations your friend [referring to Corwyn Schultz] made over last years['] issues.” Biery writes that he does not expect “the respondents superintendent and band director to engage in a public spectacle of self-flagellation for communicating words better left unsaid.” He then gives the respondents “the opportunity” to sign the following statement within 10 days: “I apologize for statements I made, which were interpreted by plaintiffs as disparaging towards them. I will abide by the Settlement Agreement and Release entered on February 9, 2012.” By equal measure, Biery writes that the plaintiffs “shall” sign the following statement within 10 days of receiving the apology: “Your apology is accepted. I will abide by the Settlement Agreement and Release entered on February 9, 2012.” “If the Court’s suggestion is acted upon . . . the Court will find that any alleged contempt by respondents has been purged,” writes Biery. And Biery imparted some final wisdom in his order: “The Court reminds the parties of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides in part that ‘no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ While it is invoked for criminal prosecutions, its underlying premise is instructive for Homo sapien relationships in general: Trouble does not come from words unspoken, particularly in this age of e-mails, tweets, cameras and recorders.” Gregory M. Lipper , senior litigation counsel with Americans United for Separation of Church and State who represents the plaintiffs in Schultz , is pleased with the order. “We asked them to apologize and asked the judge to enforce the agreement. And we believe the judge’s order is the right result,” he says. Craig Wood , a partner in San Antonio’s Walsh, Anderson, Gallegos, Green & Trevino who represents the defendant school district, says, “We think it’s a very reasonable way to work things out in lieu of the cost of further litigation,” adding that the respondents signed the apology and the plaintiffs accepted it on March 21.

Social Media and Elections

President-elect candidates for the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Young Lawyers Association are using Facebook to get the word out about their campaigns. The Bar and TYLA changed their election rules in 2011 to explicitly permit candidates to campaign with social media. So far, Facebook is the primary social-media platform for Bar president-elect candidates Steve Bolden and Lisa Tatum , and TYLA candidates Kristy Piazza and Shivali Sharma . The Bar’s election rules say president-elect candidates may use only Facebook for their social media campaigning. TYLA’s rules don’t specify any social-media platform; Piazza says she’s only using Facebook, while Sharma says she also uses LinkedIn and Google+, but she only posts updates on Facebook. Candidates have posted campaign-brochure information, campaign announcements, photos and messages thanking groups that host campaign stops. Bolden, Piazza and Sharma say they’re happy with feedback from Facebook users who “like” their posts and leave comments. Tatum, a San Antonio solo, could not be reached for comment. Bolden, shareholder in Mahomes Bolden in Dallas, notes the Bar’s election rules don’t define exactly how candidates can campaign with Facebook. He says he and Tatum worked with the Bar’s Nominations and Elections Subcommittee on one detail: whether a candidate can campaign with a Facebook profile or a Facebook page. According to Facebook’s help center, a profile is for an individual, while a page is for a business, organization or celebrity “to maintain a professional presence on Facebook.” Whoever creates a Facebook page becomes its primary “administrator.” Bolden campaigns with his personal Facebook profile, whereas Tatum campaigns with a Facebook page. Bolden says the subcommittee decided to permit both methods. Terry Tottenham , co-chairman of the Bar’s Nominations and Elections Subcommittee, says, “Basically, we’ve approved Facebook . . . and whatever has been preapproved can be used.” Bolden says using Facebook has “created another level of connectivity with lawyers” and with the general public. Piazza, an associate with Koons Fuller Vanden Eykel & Robertson in Plano, says she thinks “social media is a huge way of getting information to the community,” and it’s a “plus” to distribute information about candidates, and Bar and TYLA projects. Sharma, a staff attorney at the 6th Court of Appeals in Texarkana, says she hopes candidates’ Facebook pages get more publicity in the future, adding, “I think it will really take off next year.”