Appellants Presiding Judges' Motion to File Brief Through Independent Counsel

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 

COUNCIL NO. 4434, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees 

VS. 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, ETC., ET AL., 

Defendants 

  

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

APPELLANTS PRESIDING JUDGES' MOTION TO FILE 

BRIEF THROUGH INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

NOW COMES The Honorable Ron Chapman, The Honorable Thomas J. 

Stovall, Jr., The Honorable B. B. Schraub, The Honorable John 

Cornyn III, The Honorable Darrell Hester, The Honorable Sam M. 

Paxson, The Honorable Weldon Kirk, and The Honorable Jeff Walker, 

("Presiding Judges"), Presiding Judges of Administrative Judicial 

Regions, Members of the Judicial Districts Board, and Appellants 

herein, and file this Motion to File Brief Through Independent 

Counsel in the above-styled and numbered cause, and would 

respectfully show the Court as follows: 

 



  

I. 

The Presiding Judges have heretofore informed their attorney 

of record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General of the State 

of Texas, of their opposition to his conduct in this litigation, 

and in particular to his settlement negotiations and attempted 

modification of the Order entered by the District Court below. 

Nevertheless, the Attorney General proceeded in private 

negotiations on his own behalf, acting solely in his capacity as 

Attorney General and as a Defendant in this lawsuit, and not as 

counsel for the Presiding Judges. 

11. 

Attorney General Mattox has refused to represent the Presiding 

Judges' legitimate interest, views and desires in a truly adversary 

manner. In the course of this litigation, the Attorney General has 

made agreements without his clients' knowledge or consent, has 

failed to inform the Presiding Judges of important developments, 

and has engaged in private negotiations with the Plaintiffs 

resulting in compromises and agreements unacceptable to the 

Presiding Judges. The Attorney General has not afforded the 

Presiding Judges the same diligent and faithful representation to 

which a client is entitled, and has failed to adequately represent 

his clients' interests herein. The Attorney General is a candidate 

for Governor, and in the context of his political campaign the 

Attorney General has publicly stated that he is opposed to the 

 



  

present system of electing judges at the same time he is purporting 

to represent to the Presiding Judges in defending that very system. 

There thus exists a conflict of interest between the Presiding 

Judges, the clients, and Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has 

breached his clients' trust and instructions and has substituted 

his personal views for those of his clients to placate Plaintiffs’ 

wishes and advance his own political agenda. 

111. 

The Presiding Judges have previously informed the Attorney 

General of their opposition to his conduct in this litigation. 

The Presiding Judges have also requested the Attorney General to 

authorize the Presiding Judges to engage R. James George, Jr. and 

John M. Harmon of the firm of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, 

as their independent counsel. Having received no satisfactory 

response, and in order to protect the Presiding Judges' right to 

legal representation that will maintain a truly adversarial 

relationship between the parties and guarantee that the Presiding 

Judges legal positions are fairly, energetically, and 

independently carried forward, the Presiding Judges have retained 

said attorneys to represent their interests at no expense to the 

State. A timely brief had been submitted by said attorneys on 

behalf of Presiding Judges. 

 



  

Iv. 

on January 11, 1990, this Court denied the Attorney General's 

Motion to Strike the Notice of Designation of Independent Counsel 

filed on behalf of Secretary of State George Bayoud. The Presiding 

Judges are in an identical position to that of Secretary of State 

Bayoud. The same conflict of interest that required the Secretary 

of State to obtain independent counsel presents itself here. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Presiding Judges 

respectfully request that this Court grant permission to file their 

brief through independent counsel. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY 

2300 NCNB Tower 
515 Congress Avenue 
Post Office Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 
(512) 480-5600 

  

R. JAnes Georgg, Jr. (J 
Statle /Bar No. {07810000 

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDING JUDGES 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

By my signature below, I do hereby certify to the Court that 

a true and correct copy of this document and any attachments have 

been sent by United States Express Mail, or hand delivery, on this 

14th day of February, 1990, to all counsel of record. 

  

F:\jmharmon\10752.1\brief.mot 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 

COUNCIL NO. 4434, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees 

VS. 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, ETC., ET AL., 

Defendants 

  

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

APPELLANTS PRESIDING JUDGES' MOTION TO FILE 

BRIEF THROUGH INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

NOW COMES The Honorable Ron Chapman, The Honorable Thomas J. 

Stovall, Jr., The Honorable B. B. Schraub, The Honorable John 

Cornyn III, The Honorable Darrell Hester, The Honorable Sam M. 

Paxson, The Honorable Weldon Kirk, and The Honorable Jeff Walker, 

("Presiding Judges"), Presiding Judges of Administrative Judicial 

Regions, Members of the Judicial Districts Board, and Appellants 

herein, and file this Motion to File Brief Through Independent 

Counsel in the above-styled and numbered cause, and would 

respectfully show the Court as follows: 

 



  

Xs 

The Presiding Judges have heretofore informed their attorney 

of record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General of the State 

of Texas, of their opposition to his conduct in this litigation, 

and in particular to his settlement negotiations and attempted 

modification of the Order entered by the District Court below. 

Nevertheless, the Attorney General proceeded in private 

negotiations on his own behalf, acting solely in his capacity as 

Attorney General and as a Defendant in this lawsuit, and not as 

counsel for the Presiding Judges. 

11. 

Attorney General Mattox has refused to represent the Presiding 

Judges' legitimate interest, views and desires in a truly adversary 

manner. In the course of this litigation, the Attorney General has 

made agreements without his clients’ knowledge or consent, has 

failed to inform the Presiding Judges of important developments, 

and has engaged in private negotiations with the Plaintiffs 

resulting in compromises and agreements unacceptable to the 

Presiding Judges. The Attorney General has not afforded the 

Presiding Judges the same diligent and faithful representation to 

which a client is entitled, and has failed to adequately represent 

his clients' interests herein. The Attorney General is a candidate 

for Governor, and in the context of his political campaign the 

Attorney General has publicly stated that he is opposed to the 

 



  

present system of electing judges at the same time he is purporting 

to represent to the Presiding Judges in defending that very system. 

There thus exists a conflict of interest between the Presiding 

Judges, the clients, and Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has 

breached his clients' trust and instructions and has substituted 

his personal views for those of his clients to placate Plaintiffs!’ 

wishes and advance his own political agenda. 

11X. 

The Presiding Judges have previously informed the Attorney 

General of their opposition to his conduct in this litigation. 

The Presiding Judges have also requested the Attorney General to 

authorize the Presiding Judges to engage R. James George, Jr. and 

John M. Harmon of the firm of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, 

as their independent counsel. Having received no satisfactory 

response, and in order to protect the Presiding Judges' right to 

legal representation that will maintain a truly adversarial 

relationship between the parties and guarantee that the Presiding 

Judges legal positions are fairly, energetically, and 

independently carried forward, the Presiding Judges have retained 

said attorneys to represent their interests at no expense to the 

State. A timely brief had been submitted by said attorneys on 

behalf of Presiding Judges. 

 



  

IV. 

on January 11, 1990, this Court denied the Attorney General's 

Motion to Strike the Notice of Designation of Independent Counsel 

filed on behalf of Secretary of State George Bayoud. The Presiding 

Judges are in an identical position to that of Secretary of State 

Bayoud. The same conflict of interest that required the Secretary 

of State to obtain independent counsel presents itself here. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Presiding Judges 

respectfully request that this Court grant permission to file their 

brief through independent counsel. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY 

2300 NCNB Tower 

515 Congress Avenue 

Post Office Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 
(512) 480-5600 

he Gare 
R. JAnes Georgg, Jr. (J 
Statle /Bar No. {07810000 

  

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDING JUDGES 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

By my signature below, I do hereby certify to the Court that 

a true and correct copy of this document and any attachments have 

been sent by United States Express Mail, or hand delivery, on this 

14th day of February, 1990, to all counsel of record. 

  

R mes 9-7 . eokrge, : 

F:\jmharmon\10752.1\brief.mot