No $300/Hour Payday for Prosecutors in Felony Cases Against Texas AG Ken Paxton
The judge presiding over Paxton's case agreed to pay special prosecutors $300 per hour, but the case has been delayed for years over their fee, as Collin County commissioners argued that there's a statute saying the county can only pay the prosecutors the same fee that an appointed indigent defense attorney would receive.
June 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Ken Paxton.
The special prosecutors who have been handling the felony case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton were initially expecting to earn $300 per hour, but those hopes were dashed Wednesday.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a motion for rehearing on an opinion it issued in November 2018 that determined that Texas law caps special prosecutors' pay at the same amount that Collin County pays to indigent criminal-defense attorneys.
“We're disappointed that the Court took six months to summarily deny our motion for rehearing without addressing any of the substantial legal issues it raised, something it routinely criticizes the courts of appeals for doing,” said Attorney Pro Tem Brian Wice of Houston, who is prosecuting Paxton along with Houston attorneys Kent Schaffer and Nicole DeBorde.
When a district attorney has a conflict of interest in prosecuting a criminal defendant, the district attorney must recuse his office from the case and appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute the case.
Paxton was indicted in 2015—eight months after he won 2014's election—on two first-degree felony securities fraud charges and a third-degree felony charge for failure to register as an investment adviser representative. The Collin County district attorney, Greg Willis, had past business dealings with Paxton and recused from the case. Wice, Schaffer and DeBorde were appointed to handle the matter.
The judge presiding over Paxton's case agreed to pay them $300 per hour, but the case has been delayed for years over their fee, as Collin County commissioners argued that there's a statute saying the county can only pay the prosecutors the same fee that an appointed indigent defense attorney would receive. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with that interpretation last November, and the prosecutors filed a motion for rehearing.
In today's ruling, the high court denied rehearing, which means its November opinion will stand.
Related stories:
Decision Blocking Pay for Special Prosecutors on Ken Paxton Case Upheld on Appeal
Special Prosecutors, Citing Lack of Pay, Seek Delay of Paxton Trial
Read the prosecutors' motion for rehearing:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
South Carolina Physicians Challenge Abortion Ban Under Religious Freedom Claims
7th Circ. Revives Transactional Dispute Against Military Retailer, Sends to State Court
4 minute read
DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Case Advances Against Atlanta Judge
- 2Reflections on the Changing Legal Profession Upon 40 Years in Practice
- 3The Growing Antitrust Scrutiny of DraftKings and FanDuel
- 4Does Your Corporate Compliance Program Reasonably Prevent Fraud? New UK Guidance Demands It
- 5Apple GC’s Compensation Flat Again in 2024, but She Might Snag No. 1 Spot on Top-Paid List Anyway
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
