Brown, Patrick Marcel
PD-0761-15
| Tex. | Jul 31, 2015Background
- Patrick Brown was convicted in Harris County for falsely holding himself out as a lawyer under Tex. Penal Code §38.122 after assisting a real estate client in a transaction.
- The State sought to prove the offense by showing Brown did not correct a complainant’s mistaken belief that he was a lawyer and acted in ways consistent with that belief.
- Indictment alleged August 10, 2011, that Brown intended to obtain an economic benefit and held himself out as a lawyer while not licensed and not in good standing in Texas or other jurisdictions.
- Brown stipulated he was not in good standing with the State Bar of Texas or any other licensing authority.
- Brown’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals conviction was affirmed; discretionary review raises questions about the statute’s text and its constitutional implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 'holds himself out' under §38.122 | Brown argues the plain meaning is narrower than appellate interpretations | State argues broader interpretation is necessary to protect consumers | Ground One: broader interpretations rejected; need reanalysis under plain meaning |
| Constitutional scope of good standing requirement | Brown contends the good standing requirement violates First Amendment rights | State contends regulation of the legal profession is a legitimate regulatory interest | Ground Two: good standing provision subject to First Amendment scrutiny; overbreadth/vagueness considerations discussed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (U.S. (1978)) (nonlawyer speech and association protections in professional contexts)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (U.S. (1988)) (speech protections in regulated contexts; analogies to regulated professions)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (U.S. (2010)) (First Amendment implications of government regulation of speech)
- Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (interpretation of 'good standing' and regulation of practice of law in Texas)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (online solicitation and First Amendment considerations for speech regulations)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standards for evaluating hypothetically correct jury charges and sufficiency of indictment)