Harry C. Crawford, III, Darrell Garrett and Theophilus Operating Company, L.L.C. v. Nguyen & Chen, LLP, 01-16-00274-CV

Nguyen & Chen LLP (N&C) sued former clients Harry C. Crawford III, Darrell Garrett, and Theophilus Operating Co. LLC for unpaid legal fees arising from prior representation; N&C sought recovery of those fees and fees incurred in the collection suit.
Crawford, the LLC’s managing member, filed a pro se answer on behalf of all defendants; N&C moved to strike because a non‑attorney cannot represent an LLC.
The trial court granted the motion to strike and in its order directed the defendants be taxed with N&C’s attorney’s fees and costs; the defendants later alleged they lacked notice of the strike hearing.
At the jury trial on N&C’s breach‑of‑contract claim, N&C’s attorneys (Nguyen and Ghafoor) testified about attorney‑fee amounts; defendants objected under TRCP 194.2(f)(3) for insufficient expert disclosures (ruling obtained only on Ghafoor’s testimony).
The court entered judgment awarding N&C $15,498.21 for fees from the underlying suit and $13,200 for fees in the collection suit; the court separately entered a $1,200 sanction judgment against Crawford and Theophilus for the pro se filing.
On appeal, the defendants challenged (1) admission of attorney‑fee testimony for lack of expert disclosure, and (2) the trial court’s authority to impose the $1,200 sanction/fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of attorney‑fee testimony under TRCP 194.2(f)(3)	N&C: attorneys may testify as experts about fees; disclosure (listing attorneys and pleading fees) was adequate and there was no unfair surprise	Theophilus: N&C failed to disclose general substance of experts’ opinions and bases, so testimony was inadmissible	Court: preserved objection only as to Ghafoor; trial court did not abuse discretion — disclosure and lack of unfair surprise justified admission; fee awards affirmed
Authority to award $1,200 as sanction/attorney’s fees for pro se LLC filing	N&C: award is a sanction recoverable under Rule 13 or the court’s inherent power	Theophilus: no notice/hearing, no rule/statute authorizing fees, and no findings that conduct interfered with court’s core functions	Court: trial court erred—no Rule 13 invocation, no notice or factual findings required for inherent‑power sanction; $1,200 sanction judgment reversed and vacated

Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry‑Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (standard for reviewing trial court rulings on expert evidence)
Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1996) (corporations/LLCs must appear through licensed counsel)
Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013) (Texas follows the American Rule on attorney’s fees absent statute or contract)
Kings Park Apartments, Ltd. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 101 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (court should rely on established rules/statutes for sanctions; inherent power has limits)
Greene v. Young, 174 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (due process requires notice and hearing before imposing sanctions under inherent power)
Koslow’s v. Mackie, 796 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing sanctions)