Judges Testifying Against Lawyers? Yes, According to This Texas High Court Ruling
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that not only was it appropriate for a federal bankruptcy judge to testify in an attorney disciplinary case about McAllen lawyer Mark Cantu's misconduct, it also may have been required. The judge was the complainant who filed the grievance, the opinion explained.
October 25, 2019 at 02:35 PM
4 minute read
In a case that makes it clear that Texas judges are permitted to testify in attorney discipline cases, the Texas Supreme Court decided Friday that it was wrong for an appellate court to overturn an attorney's disbarment because of a judge's testimony.
In the case, Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Cantu, McAllen attorney Mark Cantu was disbarred, but an appellate court reversed because in the trial a federal bankruptcy judge had testified about overseeing Cantu's personal bankruptcy proceedings. The high court overruled that decision, however, and sent it back to McAllen's Thirteenth Court of Appeals.
"It is pretty rare for a judge to testify in a disciplinary case. Not unheard of, of course, but not very common," said an email by Claire Reynolds, spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which represents the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
Cantu, who denies violating disciplinary rules, said he thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong.
"Hopefully the court of appeals will listen to our legal arguments, and this nightmare will be over for me and my family," said Cantu. "I'm really a good guy."
Beck Redden partner David Gunn of Houston, who represented Cantu, declined to comment.
According to the per curiam opinion, Cantu's conduct in his bankruptcy brought the disciplinary action, which was reported by Judge Marvin Isgur, who had denied Cantu a debt discharge because of the attorney's misconduct. In a 72-page opinion that explained his ruling, the judge also decided that his ethical obligations required him to report Cantu to the State Bar of Texas.
In the resulting disciplinary case, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline maintained that Cantu broke a disciplinary rule that prohibits attorneys from taking positions that increase the costs or burdens of the case, or delay the resolution of the case. It alleged Cantu violated other rules that prohibit lawyers from knowingly making false statements to courts, or knowingly entering false evidence. Among other things, the commission also claimed Cantu violated a rule that prohibits attorneys from knowingly disobeying a standing rule or ruling by a court.
At a jury trial, Isgur testified as a fact witness at great length about Cantu's conduct.
Cantu objected to the judge's testimony, and also to admission of a redacted copy of Isgur's opinion in the underlying bankruptcy case. Isgur's testimony was damaging to Cantu and included statements that, among other things, Cantu gave false oaths in court, improperly concealed and transferred assets, refused to comply with court orders, and withheld information from the trustee.
The jury found that Cantu violated all but one of the disciplinary rules that were alleged in the lawsuit. And the judge in the ethics case found that disbarment was the proper sanction.
But on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that allowing Isgur's testimony was reversible error. That decision was based on a 1991 Texas Supreme Court case, Joachim v. Chambers, which disapproved of the admission of expert testimony by a judge in a legal-malpractice case.
But the latest adjudicators found Joachim wasn't meant as a broad and general rule against courtroom testimony by judges.
"To impose such a rule in attorney-disciplinary cases would be particularly ill-advised," the per curiam opinion found. "In this case, as in others, the judge is the complainant who filed the grievance against the lawyer. Disallowing testimony from judges in such cases would place judge-initiated grievances at an artificial disadvantage, relative to other grievances in which the complainant may freely testify."
The high court also found there was no error in allowing the bankruptcy proceeding opinion to be admitted as evidence in the disciplinary case.
Cantu, who didn't return a call seeking comment, earned his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1985 and was licensed in Texas in 1986. Before his 2016 disbarment, he was practicing personal injury litigation at the Law Office of Mark A. Cantu in McAllen.
Cantu also has a history of discipline. In 2000, he was suspended from practicing law for two weeks, followed by six months of probation. In 2002, he was suspended for three months, followed by three months of probation. He also received a fully probated suspension from July 2014 to September 2015.
|Read the opinion:
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
© 2024 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 AllAre Associate Sign-On Bonuses Back? Not Just Yet, Recruiters Say
Midsize Texas Firm Kane Russell Takes Another Step Toward Second-Generation Leadership With New CFO
3 minute readTrending Stories
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