John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas
03-15-00007-CV
| Tex. App. | May 14, 2015Background
- Appellant John Doe filed a UDJA declaratory-judgment suit seeking a copy of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s (CDC) recommendation to a summary-disposition panel after the panel dismissed his grievance against an attorney.
- CDC presented the matter to a summary-disposition panel under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure; the panel dismissed the complaint and its decision is not appealable.
- Rule 2.16 makes disciplinary proceedings and associated records confidential; no rule requires CDC to prepare or disclose a written recommendation to complainants before panel presentation.
- Rule 15.09 grants absolute, unqualified immunity to participants in the disciplinary process for official acts, supplementing sovereign immunity afforded to the State Bar and its committees.
- The district court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; appellees appealed, defending dismissal on sovereign/statutory immunity and nonjusticiability grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Appellant’s UDJA claims | Appellant: CDC must provide him the CDC recommendation; UDJA permits declaratory relief | Appellees: Sovereign immunity and Rule 15.09 bar suit; UDJA does not waive immunity for these claims | Dismissal affirmed: immunity bars suit; UDJA does not waive immunity here |
| Whether Appellant challenged a statute’s validity (UDJA exception to immunity) | Appellant: framed claim as entitlement to recommendation despite Rule 2.16 | Appellees: Appellant did not challenge validity of Rule 2.16, only its application; so UDJA exception inapplicable | Court: No challenge to validity; exception not met |
| Whether the ultra vires exception to immunity applies | Appellant: CDC acted without legal authority (ultra vires) by withholding recommendation | Appellees: CDC discretion under rules; no law mandates preparation/disclosure; Rule 2.16 expressly forbids disclosure | Court: Ultra vires exception fails because act was discretionary and disclosure is prohibited |
| Whether the requested relief is justiciable or would impermissibly interfere with Supreme Court authority | Appellant: seeks declaratory guidance to permit disclosure in future grievances | Appellees: Relief would usurp Supreme Court’s exclusive rulemaking/discipline authority; claim is moot/advisory after dismissal | Court: Nonjusticiable — would interfere with Supreme Court authority and is effectively advisory/moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Bacon v. Tex. Historical Comm'n, 411 S.W.3d 161 (Tex.App.—Austin 2013) (standing and justiciability principles)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional review and sovereign-immunity principles)
- Tex. Dep't of Transportation v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (UDJA does not waive sovereign immunity absent express legislative waiver; ultra vires framework)
- State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (limits on district court relief that usurps Supreme Court authority over bar rules)
- In re State Bar of Tex., 440 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2014) (mandamus relief where district court order interfered with disciplinary process)