Craig A. Washington v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 03-15-00083-CV

Craig A. Washington appealed after the Third Court of Appeals consolidated appeal from Bastrop County district court about lawyer discipline (Cause No. 29,123).
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline alleged deceit, dishonesty, and misrepresentation; trial court excluded Washington’s good character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1)(B).
The Commission does not dispute that exclusion of good character evidence was error, but argues the error was harmless.
Washington contends the exclusion harmed his ability to defend against multiple charges and damaged his credibility as a witness.
The parties stipulated that Washington would have called multiple additional witnesses to testify to his truthfulness and reputation if allowed.
The court must assess harm by considering the whole record and the potential impact on credibility across the charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the exclusion of good character evidence harmful error?	Washington argues exclusion violated Rule 404(a)(1)(B) and harmed his credibility.	Commission contends error was harmless and evidence would not affect outcome.	No; exclusion was harmful and reversible.
Did Washington properly refute Gobert and Randle given trial limits on testimony?	Washington directly disputed their version; testimony was constrained by time and still denied deceit.	Commission asserts limited evidence; Washington did not establish substantial refutation.	Washington directly refuted the opposing version.
Could character evidence have been so compelling as to change the verdict on charges other than deceit?	Conflicting testimony and juror impressions could have shifted verdict if credibility evidence were admitted.	Testimony was not likely to alter verdict beyond the deceit issue.	Yes; the record shows potential for a different outcome across charges.
Was Washington’s reputation evidence admissible to support credibility under Rule 608(a) and preserved for review?	Evidence of truthful character was admissible to rehabilitate credibility and preserved by argument tying impeachment to Rule 608(a).	Commission argues admissibility limited and error unpreserved.	Admissible under Rule 608(a); error preserved and harmful.

Arkoma Basin Exploration Co., Inc. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2008) (harmful error review requires evaluating the whole record)
Michael v. State, 235 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (test for attack on credibility under Rule 608(a))
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008) (consider entire record when assessing harmless error)
Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (harmful error review requires looking at the entire record)
Wooten v. State, 2013 WL 1831571 (Tex. App.— Austin 2013) (liberal construction of preservation limits)