Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Joseph A. Bellino III appeals the trial court’s order disbarring him. He asserts legal and factual insufficiency and charge error. He also asserts that the trial court erred in allowing belatedly disclosed witnesses to testify and that the trial court erred in its handling of questions from the jury during deliberations. HOLDING:Affirmed as modified. Bellino argues that the trial court erred in permitting witnesses presented by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to testify over his objection that the commission failed to disclose its witnesses within 30 days before trial. The commission does not dispute that it failed formally to disclose its witnesses within the 30-day time frame, but asserts that Bellino was not unfairly surprised by the identity of the witnesses. The court concludes that the record supports a finding of lack of unfair surprise and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the commission’s witnesses to testify. The jury charge contained 42 separate questions. The charge followed proper treatment for statute-based violations, and the questions were not duplicative or confusing, the court finds. Accordingly, the court concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the charge. Bellino asserts there is no evidence to support the findings pertinent to the case concerning Rochelle Johns-Ladd and Adam Johns and that concerning Juan Villanueva. He challenges both legal and factual sufficiency with respect to the case of Linda Lok and Wing Wong and the case involving Fahira Delic and a chiropractor. He also asserts the evidence is factually insufficient to support violations of the rules declaring as misconduct a knowing failure to respond, or failure timely to respond, to a lawful request for information from a disciplinary authority. Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 8.01(b), see Rule 8.04(a)(8). With respect to several of Bellino’s former clients, the commission alleges that Bellino violated Disciplinary Rule 1.02(a)(2) by failing to obtain the clients’ consent before accepting a settlement offer. Rule 1.02(a)(2) states in pertinent part that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions . . . whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter, except as otherwise authorized by law.” This court states that the evidence in several fact situations in the instant suit indicates that Bellino failed to communicate settlement offers to several clients before he accepted those offers. Bellino argues that in each situation there is no evidence the client ever made a decision concerning settlement, and thus there is no evidence he failed to “abide by a client’s decisions” under the rule. The court rejects Bellino’s argument. Under Rule 1.02(a)(2), the lawyer’s obligation to communicate an offer to a client is logically subsumed under the obligation to abide by the client’s decision to accept or reject such an offer. Comment 2 makes this obligation explicit, stating that “a lawyer is obligated to communicate any settlement offer to the client in a civil case.” Accordingly, to support a violation of Rule 1.02(a)(2), it is unnecessary to show that a client made a decision to accept or reject a settlement offer when the evidence shows the lawyer never communicated the offer to the client. Because the commission has conceded there is insufficient evidence to support 12 of the jury’s affirmative answers in its favor, the court reforms the judgment to omit the conclusions that the respondent violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.15(b)(1), 4.01(a), 8.01(a), 8.04(a) (2) and (12). Based upon the other findings of the jury, the court finds evidence to support the determination that Bellino violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.02(a)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.04(a), 1.08(a), 1.14(a) and (b), 1.15(d), 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(1), (3) and (8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, the court concludes there is ample evidence to support a judgment of disbarment and to support the specific “sanctions” imposed with respect to individual complainants. OPINION:O’Neill, J.; Whittington, James and O’Neill, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.