 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Favaloro v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline2/28/2000
The State Bar of Texas filed a disciplinary petition in the name of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney Richard W. Favaloro, alleging professional misconduct. The trial court found that Favaloro committed misconduct in violation of rules 3.03(a)(1), 8.02(a), and 8.04(a)(3) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and suspended Favaloro from the practice of law, probated for three years. In twenty-four points of error, Favaloro argues generally that the trial court (1) lacked jurisdiction, (2) erred in charging the jury and entering judgment because he had no fair notice of the charges against him, (3) erred in overruling his evidentiary objections, (4) erred in entering judgment on the jury's verdict, (5) erred in charging the jury, (6) erred in refusing his jury issues and definitions, (7) erred in overruling his motion for continuance, (8) erred in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, (9) erred in overruling his objections to opposing counsel, (10) erred in sustaining the Commission's objections to his exhibits, (11) erred in disregarding the jury's finding on attorney's fees, and (12) erred in failing to stay judgment pending appeal. In a single cross point, the Commission argues that the trial court erred in fully probating Favaloro's suspension. We affirm the trial court's judgment. We publish this opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 6.06. See Tex. R. Disciplinary P. 6.06, reprinted in Tex. Gov't. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. A-1 (Vernon 1998).
Background
This disciplinary proceeding arose out of Favaloro's representation of a client in a wrongful termination of employment case. Opposing counsel filed a grievance against Favaloro. A district grievance committee determined that there was just cause to believe that Favaloro had violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules. However, before the committee notified Favaloro of its determination, Favaloro filed suit in the 191st District Court of Dallas County against the State Bar of Texas, the grievance committee, and the committee chairperson.
Favaloro gave the following notice in the final paragraph of his petition against the State Bar:
"Under Rule 2.14, Plaintiff [Favaloro] refuses any further proceedings before the District 6A grievance committee or any other grievance committee regarding the Grievance."
The Commission subsequently filed a disciplinary petition against Favaloro in the 95th District Court of Dallas County. A jury found, among other things, that Favaloro had made certain false statements in the course of the underlying suit, and the trial court entered judgment that Favaloro had committed professional misconduct. Favaloro now brings this appeal.
Jurisdiction
We first address Favaloro's arguments that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this case. In his first point of error, Favaloro argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the Commission did not plead all "statutory conditions precedent." In his second point of error, Favaloro argues the trial court erred in entering judgment because it failed to find these same "conditions precedent." The "conditions precedent" to which Favaloro refers are the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure pertaining to the composition and operation of district grievance committees. See Tex. R. Disciplinary P. 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15. Specifically, Favaloro argues that the disciplinary petition against him did not allege, among other things, that the grievance against him was assigned to a properly-appointed district grievance committee or that the committee classified the grievance
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|