Correspondence from Hicks to Bayoud Re: Wassdourf Letter

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

JIM MATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

December 22, 1990 

Honorable George S. Bayoud, Jr. 

P. O. Box 12697, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: LULAC v. Mattox, No. 90-8014 

Dear Mr. Bayoud: 

I have just now reviewed your December 18th letter to me. I 

disagree with virtually every factual premise and every implication in 

it, but won't respond here on a point by point basis. Most of them 
simply rehash our continuing dispute on the legal and ethical 
propriety of yours and Mr. Hill's actions before the Fifth Circuit. We 
disagree, the Fifth Circuit has never issued a written ruling, and, with 

your departure, we never are going to resolve the matter; however, 
some new points warrant a response. 

I intended and see no negative tone in my communication with 
the Fifth Circuit. First, I felt ethically obligated to send the 
information because it made moot an issue pending before the court. 
Second, I simply indicated what Mr. Wassdourf's letter to me 
indicated: that even your view was that Mr. Hill no longer represented 
you in your official capacity. I even included Mr. Wassdourf's letter in 
my communication to the Fifth Circuit. (In a similar communication a 
week later concerning certain members of the Judicial Districts 
Board, I did not include their counsel's letter informing me of the 
change because it included a personal compliment to me which 
seemed inappropriate to include in a communication to the court.) 

—nan | NASSP mown ana QU WBNB NIWA WS AABN THRO WRW TWN WRN WAY ATTETIW. HW AR TRIYITI-DT AR 

 



  

Mr. Wassdourf's letter said nothing about your action being 

limited to Supreme Court representation. That is a gloss retroactively 

given it by your December 18th letter. I told the Fifth Circuit 

precisely what your office told me. If what you told me is not what you 

meant, that is not my problem and not my fault. 

I resent this most recent cheap shot of yours. Frankly, I would 
have expected more from you. Putting the best light on what you have 
done, my surmise is that you failed to clearly communicate your 
intention, that either you or Mr. Hill belatedly recognized your 
mistake, and that your December 18th letter was the only way you 
could find to try to vindicate Mr. Hill. 1 only hope you intended 
nothing more distasteful. 

Sincerely, 

  

   

“
©
 \ ! 

PA 

  

-} 

Renea Hicks J 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512() 463-2085 

cc: Counsel of record