Craig A. Washington v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
03-15-00083-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 23, 2015Background
- Craig A. Washington (respondent/appellant) was an attorney who filed suit in 2006 on behalf of clients seeking to recover their deceased mother’s home; the trial court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution in October 2009 and the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed in October 2010.
- Washington failed to attend the pretrial hearing and trial, failed to comply with a docket-control order, and did not inform his clients of the dismissal; clients only discovered the final disposition by internet searches in 2012.
- The Commission for Lawyer Discipline sued, alleging violations of Texas Disciplinary Rules: 1.01(b)(1) (neglect), 1.03(a) (failure to inform), 1.15(d) (failure to protect client interests on termination), and 8.04(a)(3) (dishonesty/misrepresentation).
- At a jury trial the jury found misconduct; the trial court entered judgment imposing a four‑year partially probated suspension (later modified to reduce active suspension) and related sanctions. Character witnesses proffered by Washington were excluded during the jury phase but admitted at the sanctions hearing.
- Washington appealed, raising (inter alia) claims that exclusion of character evidence, the jury’s exposure to an unadmitted Exhibit (membership record showing a brief 1996 administrative license suspension), and alleged charge errors were reversible; he also challenged the trial court’s imposition of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Washington) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of character evidence | Exclusion of reputation/character witnesses deprived Washington of meaningful defense under TRE 404(a)(1)(B) and 608(a) | Evidence of misconduct was compelling and unrefuted; character evidence could not overcome it; 608(a) was not opened | Court affirmed: any exclusion was harmless because record was one‑sided and character evidence would not have affected verdict |
| Juror exposure to unadmitted exhibit (1996 suspension) | Presence of the document in jury room prejudiced deliberations and warrants new trial | The exhibit was remote in time and unrelated to the charged misconduct; verdict would not have resulted from that exhibit | Court affirmed: no reasonable probability that the exhibit caused an improper verdict |
| Jury charge objections | Charge lacked adequate instructions and omitted factual issues Washington wanted submitted | Charge properly tracked disciplinary rule language; Washington failed to preserve charge error (no written/tendered substantially correct instructions or timely objections) | Court affirmed: charge appropriate and error waived for failure to preserve |
| Sanctions and who decides them | Jury should determine sanctions; imposed suspension/probation excessive | Disciplinary rules assign sanctions to the trial court; sanctions supported by misconduct, harm to clients, and disciplinary history | Court affirmed: trial court—not jury—decides sanctions; imposed sanctions within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; any legitimate basis supports trial court)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (standard for harm analysis on evidentiary error; review whole record)
- State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1994) (trial court has discretion to determine sanctions in disciplinary proceedings)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (abuse of discretion review requires reference to guiding rules or principles)
- McIntyre v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 247 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (disciplinary jury trial standards; charge should track rules)
- Bellino v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 124 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (disciplinary jury charge guidance; treat rules like statutes)