John E. Deaton and Deaton Law Firm, L.L.C. v. Barry Johnson, Steven M. Johnson and Law Offices of Steven M. Johnson, 05-16-01221-CV

Background

Patton (Louisiana) signed an attorney-representation agreement with the Law Offices of Steven M. Johnson (JLF) for Kugel Mesh litigation; the agreement stated Texas law applied, obligations were performable in Tarrant County, and disputes were subject to binding arbitration in Fort Worth.
JLF handled hundreds of Kugel Mesh cases; it retained John Deaton (Rhode Island) as local counsel for some Rhode Island filings and later signed a referral agreement with him in 2012.
Disputes arose during settlement negotiations; JLF prepared settlement/fund documents, and Deaton refused to sign; he later asserted a $1,000,000 lien and litigated in Rhode Island to obtain settlement information.
Deaton signed (April 12, 2016) a stipulation acknowledging he was associated counsel under the JLF attorney-representation agreements and that those agreements were protected by privilege; he added a handwritten clarification: “not employed by the Deaton Law Firm.”
JLF sued Deaton in Texas county court seeking declaratory relief and to compel arbitration, alleging breaches, tortious interference, fraud, and fiduciary breaches; Deaton filed a special appearance asserting lack of Texas personal jurisdiction (Rhode Island resident, not Texas-licensed, insufficient contacts).
The trial court denied Deaton’s special appearance; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Deaton consented to Texas jurisdiction by acting as associate counsel under the agreements and by signing the non‑disclosure stipulation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deaton consented to Texas jurisdiction via the stipulation/forum-selection clause	JLF: Deaton was associate counsel under agreements that select Texas law/Tarrant County and arbitration in Fort Worth; signing the stipulation reaffirmed that status and bound him to the forum terms	Deaton: He was not a signatory to Patton’s JLF agreement; stipulation did not show knowing consent to Texas jurisdiction and he lacks sufficient Texas contacts	Held: Deaton consented to jurisdiction; his role as associate counsel and the stipulation bound him to the forum-selection terms — special appearance denied and judgment affirmed
Whether the stipulation constituted "knowing" consent to jurisdiction	JLF: Stipulation confirmed Deaton’s status and his recognition of the JLF agreements	Deaton: The stipulation (and his handwritten clarification) did not amount to knowing waiver of jurisdictional protections	Held: Court found the stipulation, combined with his conduct as associate counsel, constituted knowing consent
Whether Deaton is bound by the forum-selection clause in the JLF–Patton agreement	JLF: Associate‑counsel clause in representation agreement authorized referral and binds associates to agreement terms	Deaton: He claims independent referral contracts with JLF and was not a direct signatory to Patton’s agreement	Held: Deaton was associate counsel under the agreement and therefore bound by its forum-selection provisions
Whether trial court had jurisdiction over JLF’s claims against Deaton (minimum contacts/fair play)	JLF: Forum-selection/consent obviates full minimum-contacts analysis	Deaton: Even if considered, his contacts with Texas were insufficient and jurisdiction would offend fair play	Held: Because Deaton consented via the agreement/stipulation, the court didn’t need to reach a full minimum-contacts due‑process analysis and jurisdiction was proper

Key Cases Cited

BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff bears initial burden to plead facts supporting personal jurisdiction; burden then shifts to nonresident)
Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (personal jurisdiction is a question of law; implied findings in absence of findings)
Baker Hughes Inc. v. Brooks, 405 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (standard of review for special appearance when material facts undisputed)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (freely negotiated forum-selection clauses do not offend due process if reasonable)
Alattar v. Kay Holdings, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (consent to jurisdiction clause in a signed contract can constitute waiver of personal jurisdiction defenses)