Texas Supreme Court Justice Sues over Ruling

Recent Cases

Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht sued the Texas Ethics Commission over its ruling that reduced legal fees constitute a political donation. Hecht says the Jackson Walker law firm represented him in a 2006 proceeding "that affected the free speech rights of all Texas judges" - Hecht's public endorsement of Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He says Jackson Walker charged reduced fees because of its dedication to public interest work, which is ethical and permissible.
Judge Hecht, the longest-serving justice on the Texas Supreme Court, says the Preamble to the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct states that lawyers should do public interest work. Rule 1.04 spells out appropriate procedures on which to base legal fees.
Hecht says Jackson Walker charged him "a reasonable fee" that was less than it could have billed for its hourly rate, but that the reduced rate is ethical under the Rules.
A complaint was filed against Hecht in July 2007, claiming that the reduced rate was a de facto political contribution. The Commission ruled on Dec. 11, 2008 that that was the case. Hecht claims that the Commission's ruling actually would require attorneys "to ignore their Rules of Professional Conduct and charge judges differently than any other client."
The Texas Ethics Commission fined Hecht $29,000 in the case, the Dallas Morning News reported. "The commission ruled that it was a contribution to his campaign, that it exceeded legal limits on what judges can accept and that he failed to disclose the donation on his state reports," the Morning News reported on Dec. 5, 2008.
(The Morning News quoted Hecht after he emerged from what it called a 4-hour hearing. The discrepancy between the date of the Morning News report and the Commission's "final ruling" on Dec. 11 apparently results from the time needed to prepare the ruling for publication.)
The original case stemmed from Hecht's public endorsement of Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Morning News reported.
The newspaper reported that the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct admonished Hecht for endorsing Miers in May 2006, and that Hecht's "one-year legal fight resulted in a $476,000 legal fee, of which he paid $308,000. Justice Hecht said that he negotiated a lower price, a common practice with lawyer fees, and paid the discounted amount with campaign contributions."
Texas Watch filed the complaint against Hecht, saying he failed to disclose the discount. Texas law limits judicial campaign contributions to $5,000 for individuals and $30,000 for a law firm.
Hecht is represented in Travis County Court by Steve McConnico with Scott, Douglas & McConnico.

Related listings

  • EU court: Ryanair won't have to pay back subsidy

    EU court: Ryanair won't have to pay back subsidy

    Recent Cases 12/16/2008

    Budget airline Ryanair may no longer have to pay back a euro4.5 million ($6.16 million) subsidy to the Belgian state after a court ruled Thursday against an EU order to refund the sum.The European Union's appeals court said antitrust regulators made ...

  • Lawyers: US to release 3 Gitmo detainees to Bosnia

    Lawyers: US to release 3 Gitmo detainees to Bosnia

    Recent Cases 12/15/2008

    The U.S. is preparing to send three Guantanamo prisoners to Bosnia in the first detainee transfer ordered by a federal judge, attorneys for the men said Tuesday.A judge in Washington ruled last month that the government's case was not strong enough t...

  • Minn. panel rules on more disputed Senate votes

    Minn. panel rules on more disputed Senate votes

    Recent Cases 12/15/2008

    The Canvassing Board in Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount is off to a fast start in its second day of awarding challenged ballots to the candidates.The board got off to a halting start Tuesday, but in less than an hour Wednesday it dispatched almost 50...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

West Hartford, Connecticut Special Education Lawyer Forte Law Group focuses on special education law and empowering parents to advocate for their child’s rights. >> read