Texas Lawyer Blog

St. Mary’s University will let students earn bachelor’s degree and law degree in six years

Beginning in the fall of 2012, St. Mary’s University in San Antonio will offer its undergraduates an early admission program to its law school, making it possible to save time and money by obtaining a bachelor’s degree and law degree in six years, says law school Dean Charles E. Cantú. The school began accepting applications to the program in November 2011. “This reduces the students’ education cost, because it reduces the time they spend from seven years to six years, which of course reduces the cost and the time, and which allows them to enter the job market at least a year sooner,” Cantú says. The university offered a three-three program — three years of undergraduate school and three years of law school — in the 1960s but terminated the program when the American Bar Association required students to have an undergraduate degree before attending law school, he says. The law school is meeting ABA requirements by counting the student’s first year of law school as their fourth year of undergraduate school, he says. “It seems that what is old is new again,” he says. “That fits this program very aptly.” Undergraduate tuition is $23,426 for full-time students and $28,800 for full-time law students, according to the university’s and the law school’s websites. The early admission students will pay law school tuition for their fourth year of school and will attend the same classes as other first-year law students, Cantú says. The students will receive both degrees when they complete the six-year program, he says. He notes that the program also will be an effective recruiting tool for the undergraduate school. Currently, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University in College Station are the schools providing the greatest number of students to St. Mary’s law school, he says. The university’s board of trustees named the Nelson Wolff Law Early Admission Program for Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, who graduated from St. Mary’s in 1966 with bachelor’s and law degrees, Cantú says. Wolff did not return a telephone call seeking comment. “He is a very, very popular political figure in this town,” Cantú says. “He is the county judge, has been a great friend to the university and to the law school, and he attended the law school under this three-three program back when it was in place.”

-- Jeanne Graham

Reversed & Remanded videoblog: U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks discusses the power of humor.

Earlier this year, a sharply worded order from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks (pictured) of Austin got people talking. Hear from the judge himself about the power of humor and judges’ roles in teaching lawyers how to try suits.
-- Anne K. McMillan

Reversed & Remanded videoblog: Imagine getting a call from the agent who did “Twilight.” Danny Tobey of Vinson & Elkins did, and his second book is in the works.

Lots of lawyers dream of becoming writers or wonder if they should have gone to medical school. Danny Tobey (pictured) has done both. The Yale Law School grad and M.D. is deep in the editing process on his second book with Simon & Schuster. How did he end up with the agent for “Twilight” taking him on as an author? Does he want to chuck the law for the writing life? Could he feed his family on the money he makes from the books? Senior reporter John Council has the interview. 

-- Anne K. McMillan

Houston criminal-defense lawyer creates smartphone app of cases, statutes

Criminal-defense lawyer Jonathan J. Paull (pictured) has created a smartphone application that he says gives lawyers easy and ready access to legal codes and statutes. “The mobile world has changed everything,” says Paull, of the Law Office of Jonathan J. Paull in Houston. “Attorneys think about their cases all the time — not just in court, but when they’re at lunch with an associate, when they’re at home, when they’re in bed reading the paper. They are always thinking about their cases. And what do you have on you all the time? You have your phone.” Paull is the founder of PUSH:legal, which he says is a mobile law library that lawyers can download and use on iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry and Android devices. With the mobile library, lawyers can research case law and statutes at any time, in any place, he says. The library includes books of federal and state case law and statutes such as the Texas Penal Code, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. In addition to Texas, the states included the library are California, New York, Florida and Delaware, he says. “We’re constantly updating our materials,” he says. “We just put in the brand new criminal codes and sentencing guidelines. And we’re adding new cases and new information all the time.” The company has a special promotion this month, and each book can be downloaded for 99 cents through the end of December for a 45-day trial, he says.
-- Jeanne Graham

This week in Texas Lawyer

Managing Partners Survey: Research editor Jeanne Graham shares the results of Texas Lawyer’s 2011 Managing Partners Survey.

Straight talk on motions: Four Harris County judges share their thoughts in a Texas Lawyer roundtable moderated by senior reporter John Council.

Federal legal mal?: Malpractice suits with patent allegations may shift out of state courts. Senior reporter John Council has the decision.

Law technology: File-sharing site creators get personal in cloud computing suit.

Litigator of the week: Take-nothing verdict. How did he win it?

Inadmissible. Discipline. VerdictSearch. Case Summaries.

Practice management: Making life easier regarding year-end fee collections.

Risky business: James M. Stanton explains four things a judge will analyze before entering a TRO.

Candy Cane plaintiffs send U.S. Supreme Court a Merry Christmas cert petition

Seems fitting that the plaintiffs in the so-called “Candy Cane” case filed their petition for writ of certiorari in Morgan, et al. v. Swanson, et al. on Dec. 22 -- just before the holidays. On Sept. 27, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Morgan, holding that two Plano elementary school principals are immune from suit for allegedly preventing students from distributing religious gifts -- including candy canes with a religious message -- at school. “While we got a great victory on the fact that the First Amendment does protect elementary school students, and that these actions in this case were violations of the Constitution, we’re really concerned that we not allow to stand a statement that school officials can engage in religious discrimination against children and there’s no accountability,” says Kelly Shackelford, president of the Plano-based Liberty Institute, which represents the Morgan plaintiffs. Tom Brandt, a partner in Dallas’ Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin who represents the defendants in the case, could not immediately be reached for comment.
-- John Council

Plaintiff in case challenging University of Texas' use of racial considerations in admissions files reply brief with U.S. Supreme Court

On Dec. 20, Abigail Fisher filed a reply in the U.S. Supreme Court to a brief the University of Texas at Austin and its officials filed opposing her petition for writ of certiorari. Fisher is the plaintiff in the underlying case against UT and its officials. In her reply, Fisher, who is white, alleges racial considerations by UT officials disadvantaged her when the school denied her admission in 2008. In her reply, Fisher argues that the decisions by lower courts in favor of UT and its officials have opened doors for schools that want to use race-based admissions freely: “This case presents fundamental constitutional issues affecting university admissions programs nationwide. Those important issues were squarely presented below and engendered lengthy decisions at every stage of this case. As [5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] Chief Judge [Edith] Jones lamented, the decision below ‘in effect gives a green light to all public higher education institutions in this circuit, and perhaps beyond, to administer racially conscious admissions programs.’ . . . Revoking guidance that had discouraged using race-based admissions unless absolutely necessary, the [U.S. Department of Education] encourages universities ‘to take proactive steps’ to incorporate racial preferences in their admissions procedures.” In Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks granted UT and the officials' motion for summary judgment on Aug. 17, 2009. On Jan. 18, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of UT's consideration of race in its 2008 admissions process. The 5th Circuit denied en banc review on June 17. In Fisher's cert petition, filed on Sept. 15, she framed the question for the high court: "Whether this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment including Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), permit the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions." In a Dec. 7 brief in opposition to the cert petition, UT and the school officials stated that the high court should deny cert for four reasons: Fisher, who will graduate in May 2012 from Louisiana State University, lacks the personal stake needed to pursue an injunctive remedy; Fisher's petition alleges no split among the circuit courts of appeals; with Fisher's admission in her petition that UT doesn't have a specific racial goal set for its student admissions, she has "no room to argue" that "UT engages in blatant racial balancing"; and "[e]ven if members of this Court are inclined to reconsider Grutter, [Fisher's case] is a demonstrably improper vehicle, given the limited question presented, the fatal concessions that Fisher made below, and the intractable jurisdictional problems that plague her petition." Bert Rein, a partner in Washington, D.C.'s Wiley Rein, represents Fisher. The Office of the Attorney General represents UT and its officials. Rein and Tom Kelley, a spokesman for the OAG, decline comment. Gary Susswein, a spokesman for UT did not return a call seeking comment.

-- Miriam Rozen

“Beers and Liquors and Wines, Oh My!”: Federal Judge Sam Sparks rules on constitutional challenges to Texas beer laws regarding advertising, labeling

Far be it from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin to get between Texans and their love of beer. Here’s what he says in a Dec. 19 decision declaring portions of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code unconstitutional as they apply to the advertisement and labeling of beer inside the state: “The practice of law is often dry, and it is the rare case that presents an issue of genuine interest to the public. Dealing as it does with constitutional challenges to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, it is anything but ‘dry’ — and this Court would never be so foolish as to question the sincerity of Texans’ interest in beer.” Sparks' order comes in Authentic Beverages Co. Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. An Austin brewery filed the complaint in the case last year, challenging several state laws and alleging they violate the right to commercial speech, which the First Amendment protects. The complaint alleges the laws mandated that craft brewers label their beverages based on alcohol content rather than the beers’ traditional names, causing confusion for consumers. The complaint further alleges the laws prohibited small breweries from advertising where people can buy their products. Sparks ruled that the TABC had failed to submit evidence that those laws advanced government interests. “Regrettably, TABC has almost wholly failed to submit such evidence, and has often failed even to respond to Authentic’s arguments. Whether this failure reflects a tactical error, laziness, an implicit concession that the Code cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny, an erroneous assumption that TABC is entitled to special treatment, or a mere oversight, the Court cannot say,” Sparks wrote in granting summary judgment to Authentic on its First Amendment challenges. Sparks denied Authentic’s summary judgment challenges to the laws regulating the licensing of breweries in Texas on equal protection and commerce clause challenges. In concluding his order, he wrote, “The Court is shocked and dismayed at the Texas Attorney General’s halfhearted conduct in this case. The very purpose of having the Attorney General’s Office defend suits like this, is so the State of Texas can vigorously defend its duly enacted legislative mandates. Here, however, when TABC responded to Authentic’s challenges at all, it responded with little in the way of argument, and even less in the way of relevant evidence. The State of Texas is lucky the burden of proof was on Authentic for many of its claims, or else the Alcoholic Beverage Code might have fared even worse than it has.” Pete Kennedy, a partner in Austin’s Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody who represents Authentic, says, “We’re pleased with the result. A lot of beers are being popped across the state in honor of Judge Sparks’ decision.” Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the AG's office, writes in an e-mail: "The Assistant Attorney General who represented the State in this case is an experienced lawyer and stellar litigator with a history of successes in courtrooms across Texas, including serving as lead trial counsel when this office successfully defended the constitutionality of the Open Meetings Act in federal court. Just as he zealously defended the Open Meetings Act, the AAG vigorously defended the law in this case — but this time around the court apparently disagreed with the State's legal arguments."

--- John Council

Defendants file first amended response in former Republican Texas Supreme Court candidate Rick Green’s libel suit

On Dec. 12, all of the defendants in former Republican Texas Supreme Court candidate Rick Green’s libel suit filed their 26-page first amended response to the petition. Back in April, Green filed Green v. Phillips, et al. in Hays County's 207th District Court, alleging he lost the GOP 2010 primary because political activists in his own party and media members “crossed the line” in attacking his character during the course of his campaign. The 23-page petition names seven defendants, including former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips, who now is a partner in Baker Botts in Austin; Dr. John R. Coppedge; The Texas Tribune; and the Texas Association of Realtors. Green alleges in the petition that the defendants published false statements about him in, variously, a letter, an article or an email. As is common in libel suits, the defendants respond that the information about Green was “true” or “substantially true.” But taking it a step further, the first amended response states: “Green alleges that these statements created a false and defamatory impression of the events. Defendants will show the contrary. . . .” The first amended response alleges, “The facts . . . . . were much worse than the statements published by the Defendants.” Jim George (pictured), a partner in Austin's George & Brothers who represents all of the defendants in Green v. Phillips, et al., says he also expects to file a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of Green’s petition after depositions are taken in the case. But for now, the defendants are just laying out their truth-as-a-defense argument in detail, George says. Robert Bozelli, an associate with Dripping Springs' Watt Law Firm who represents Green says, “Mr. Green is reviewing the answer, and further comment will be provided by request, and the lawsuit is going forward.” Green, of Dripping Springs Green & Associates, did not return a call for comment.

-- John Council

Texas Supreme Court adopts new rule governing additional resources for complex cases, seeks public comment

The Texas Supreme Court is accepting public comment about a new judicial-administration rule that allows trial courts dealing with unusual, complex cases to ask for more staff attorneys, courtroom technology or other resources.

The high court on Dec. 12 adopted a new rule for the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration that explains what types of resources are available, what kinds of cases are eligible for them, the procedures lawyers or trial courts must follow to secure the help, and how the Judicial Committee on Additional Resources decides the requests. The State Bar of Texas Task Force on Additional Resources for Complex Cases submitted a draft of the rule to the high court in October.

Osler McCarthy, public information attorney for the high court, says the nine justices only made minor language changes to the draft. He says the court doesn’t expect to receive much public comment because the rule is noncontroversial, but some people may take interest because “there’s nuance in [the rule] that may affect some judges, and that may affect litigants.”

Anyone who wishes to give feedback must submit written comment to Marisa Secco, rules attorney for the Texas Supreme Court, by Feb. 29, 2012. The new rule, possibly with revisions, will take effect in May 2012.

-- Angela Morris