Judge Wood's Motion to Stay the Mandate; Motion for Attorneys' Fees; Clements Affidavit

    PorTER & CLEMENTS 
FIRST REPUBLICBANK CENTER 

700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 
ATTORNEYS 

  

A PARTNERSHIP INCL JING 

LEPHONE (7 3! 226-0600 

TN Ss C DINC 

! ( E } 2 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

LECCPIER 713) 228-1331 

TELECOPIER 713) 224-4835 
EVELYN V. KEYES 

TELEX 775-348 
713) 226 -06t1 

October 17, 1990 

VIA COURIER 
  

DA po 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau, Cler 
United States Court or Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit 
100 U.S. Court of Appeals Courthouse 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 79130 

Re: No. 90-8014 and No. 90-9003: League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434, et al., Plaintiffs- Respondents, v. william P. Clements, Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants, Judge Sharolyn Wood, €tc., Defendant-Appellant; In the United States Court cof Appeals for the Fifth Circui= 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Znclosed are Judge vooa's Motion ta Stay the Mandate, Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Brief in Support of Motion, and Affidavit of J. Eugene Clements with exhibits which are being filed on behalf of A ppellant/Intervenor/Defendant Judge Sharclyn Wood. 

Please verify filing in your usual manner. 

All parties are being served with a copy of Judge Wood's Motion to Stay the Mandate. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

<r ? Pe A / / 
/ i a SAEZ WN Call ) 

Evelyn V. Keyes 

EVK/cdf 

enclosure 

 



  

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
October 17, 1990 
Page -2- 

cc: Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr, Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 

Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Zoldstein & Hill 
<9th Flcor, Tower Life Bldg 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, rullen & Reikbach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 
Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O.. Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

 



  

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
October 17, 1990 
Page -3- 

cc: Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201: N. St. Mary's St., #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 
301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 
Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, In 
99 Hudson Street, 153th Flcor 
New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunninghan 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy, Suite 
Pallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 

2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019 

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 
Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

 



  

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
October 17, 1990 
Page -4- 

cc: Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 
Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Cgden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 
NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLY! WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

JUDGE WOOD'S MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") 

hereby requests the Court to stay the mandate in this case pending 

consideration of her Motion for Attorneys' Fees and, in support 

thereof, respectfully shows the Court the following: 

l. 

Judgment was entered by this Court in the above-referenced 

case on September 28, 1990, following en banc review of the case. 

The mandate will therefore issue on October 19, 1990 -- twenty-one  



  

days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The issuance 

of the mandate divests this Court of jurisdiction over this case 

and returns jurisdiction to the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Texas, where this suit was brought. All 

proceedings in the district court were stayed by Order of this 

Court January 11, 1990, pending issuance of the mandate. 

II. 

Judge Wood's Motion for Attorney's Fees raises significant 

questions of law which should properly be decided by this Court. 

It also seeks fees for work done on Judge Wood's appeal. 

Jurisdiction is currently proper in this Court, and only in this 

Court, for reasons set forth in Judge Wood's Motion for Attorneys!’ 

Fees, filed herewith and incorporated herein by this reference. 

The issues would only be confused and judicial resources wasted 

deciding the same legal issues in two courts should jurisdiction 

over attorneys' fees matters in the district court revert to that 

court. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Harris County District 

Judge Sharolyn Wood respectfully requests that the Court stay 

issuance of the mandate pending its ruling on her Motion for 

Attorneys' Fees and that it grant her such other and further relief 

to which she may show herself justly entitled. 

WO027001\005 -— 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

on Si 
J. Eugene Clements 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
3500 NCNB Center 
P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 

Phone: (713) 226-0600 
Pax: (713) 228-1331 

     
  

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 
INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this | Wl day of October, 1990, a 
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 
mailed to all counsel of record by first class United States mail, 
postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John 1. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

WO027001\005 - 

 



  

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 
Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P.O. Box 98 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 N. St. Mary's St., #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O, 'Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 
Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

W0027001\005 -4 - 

 



  

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 

2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019 

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 

Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 
Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 

900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

  

ps Un, 
EVELYN V. KEYES / 

W0027001\005 - 5 = 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 
NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

JUDGE WOOD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District Judge 

Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 19731 

and 1988, files this motion to recover her attorneys' fees from 

Defendant the State of Texas and, in support thereof, respectfully 

shows the Court the following:  



  

JURISDICTION 

1. 

This suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 and 1983 and the 

fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution. This Court has authority pursuant to § 19731 (e) to 

award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in litigation brought 

under § 1973. Section 19731 of the Voting Rights Act provides that 

"[i]ln any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of 

the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its 

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United 

States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 

U.S.C.A. 19731(e). The court also has authority under § 1988 to 

award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in litigation brought 

under § 1983. Section 1988, like § 19731 (e), provides that "[i]n 

any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [Section 1983] 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the court, in its discretion, may 

allow the prevailing party, other than the United Sates, a 

reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

Sections 19731(e) and § 1988 are construed alike. See, e.dq., 
  

Riddell v. National Democratic Party, 624 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 

1980). Judge Wood is eligible to recover attorneys' fees under 

§§ 19731(e) and 1988 because she is a prevailing party in the 

present litigation. 

II. 

Under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1988 and 19731(e) of the Voting Rights 

Act, legal fees may be recovered for services rendered at both the 

 



  

trial court level and in the Court of Appeals. Morrow v. Dillard, 

580 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1978). However, exclusive jurisdiction 

over a motion for attorneys' fees is not awarded either to the 

trial court or to the appeals court. The trial court may award 

attorneys' fees for proceedings in any court, including the Court 

of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 

1284 (5th Cir. 1978); Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile 

County, 526 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1976). Conversely, the Court of 

Appeals may also fix the amount and direct an award of attorneys!’ 

fees under 19731 (e) for services rendered at the appellate level. 

Johnson v. Mississippi, 606 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1979) (applying 

§ 1988); Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 526 

F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1975) (directing award of $2,000 to plaintiffs’ 

counsel for attorneys' fees incurred during appeal, applying 

§ 1988). Moreover the Court of Appeals may in some circumstances 

award attorneys' fees for services rendered in the trial court. 

Thorstenn v. Barnard, 883 F.2d 217 (3rd Cir. 1989). 

111. 

In Thorstenn, the case most similar to the present case, the 

Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction over the entire motion for 

attorneys' fees. The trial court had found for the defendants, so 

no determination was made there regarding the plaintiffs' legal 

fees. The Third Circuit reversed and rendered judgment. As a 

result, the plaintiffs became eligible to recover attorneys' fees 

under § 1988. The court held that 

[a] request for § 1988 fees for services rendered in the 

district court would ordinarily be decided by the 

- 3 - 

 



  

district court. However, because that court decided for 
the defendants, no fees were awarded. Because of the 
reversal the plaintiffs are now entitled to reasonable 
fees for such services. 

883 F.24 at 220. 

Iv. 

In the instant case, both law and equity compel this 

Court to accept jurisdiction over Judge Wood's entire motion for 

attorneys' fees. This Court has sole jurisdiction over all matters 

involved in this litigation preceding issuance of the mandate. 

Once the mandate issues, however, jurisdiction reverts to the 

district court.! This raises the specter of Judge Wood's being 

compelled to pursue two separate requests for attorneys' fees 

within the statutorily mandated times, one in the district court 

and one in the Court of Appeals.’ If this Court and the trial 

court were then to reach different decisions on the law as to 

whether Judge Wood is entitled to attorneys' fees, Judge Wood would 

have to bring a further appeal, requesting the Court of Appeals to 

rule on the district court's decision. Resources of this Court and 

of the appellant would be wasted in this process. Consistent 

results could be achieved with less judicial time and party expense 

if this Court, like the Thorstenn Court, considers Judge Wood's 

  

Concurrently with this Motion, Judge Wood is filing a Motion to Stay 
the Mandate. All proceedings in the district court are currently 
stayed. 

Because it is not clear to Judge Wood which is the proper course to 
take, she has filed a request for attorneys' fees in the district 
court as well as in this Court. Judge Wood would prefer for the 
issue to be considered in this Court, however, as set out in this 
Motion. 

 



  

entire Motion and remands to the trial court only those factual 

issues as to which there is some dispute. 

MERITS 

V. 

This vote dilution case originally challenged the election of 

Texas State District judges on a county-wide basis in 47 populous 

Texas counties. By the time of trial, the Plaintiffs had reduced 

the target counties to ten, the largest being Harris County, Texas, 

in which Judge Wood serves as an elected state district judge. On 

February 27, 1989, Judge Wood was permitted by the court to 

intervene to defend her personal interests as a voter and judge. 

She participated vigorously in discovery and presented the defense 

of Harris County at trial in September of 1989. 

VI. 

In an opinion issued November 8, 1989, the district court held 

that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove their constitutional 

claims, but it found liability in all target counties under § 2(b) 

of the Voting Rights Act. Subsequently, the State of Texas-- 

without the participation of Judge Wood and over her objections-- 

reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in which Texas' judicial 

election system was to be replaced immediately in the target 

counties with an "Interim Plan" under which district judges would 

be elected from State legislative districts. By order entered 

January 2, 1990, the district court adopted the Plaintiffs/Mattox 

settlement and put it into immediate effect, only changing district 

judge elections from partisan to non-partisan. The court enjoined 

 



  

the election of state district judges in the target counties, under 

Texas' statutory election system. At the same time, the district 

court certified its November 8 opinion for interlocutory appeal. 

VII. 

While the State of Texas sought amendment of the district 

court's order to reinstate partisan elections, Judge Wood appealed 

to this Court as of right from the injunction, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), and petitioned this Court for interlocutory 

review of the district court's opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1292 (b). In response, this Court enjoined implementation of the 

district court's Interim Plan, together with all further 

proceedings in the district court, and it agreed to hear Judge 

Wood's petition on the merits on an expedited basis.® The State 

filed a late notice of appeal and entered an appearance before this 

Court. It never, however, filed a petition for interlocutory 

review within the ten day jurisdictional time frame permitted by 

the district court's certification of this case for appeal. 

Therefore, Judge Wood's actions in this case were not only vital to 

the defense in the Court below but essential to the appeal. 

VIII. 

Judge Wood, Judge Entz, Secretary of State George Bayoud,* and 

the State of Texas all defended this case on appeal. As set forth 

  

Dallas County Defendant-Intervenor Judge Harold Entz also appealed 
the injunction and sought interlocutory appeal of the November 8 
opinion, incorporating Judge Wood's arguments in his petition by 
reference. 

Secretary of State Bayoud repudiated the Texas Attorney General as 
his counsel and hired independent counsel with the permission of 
this Court. 

 



in her Brief in support of her Motion for Attorneys' Fees, filed 

herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, Judge Wood 

carried her integral role in the defense of this case from the 

trial court into the Court of Appeals. On May 10, 1990 a hearing 

panel reversed the district court following briefing and oral 

argument in which Judge Wood vigorously participated. Ultimately, 

on September 28, 1990 this Court entered judgment en banc in favor 

of the Defendants on all issues. 

IX. 

Of the thirteen members of the en banc Court who participated 

in deciding this case, twelve found that Texas' system for electing 

state district judges is beyond the scope of § 2(b) of the Voting 

Rights Act--the position for which Judge Wood had argued throughout 

in the present appeal. Seven members joined Judge Gee's opinion, 

which held that § 2(b) does not apply to any state judicial 

elections because judges are not "representatives" within the 

meaning of the Act. Five judges joined in Judge Higginbotham's 

opinion, which held that § 2(b) does not apply to the election of 

state trial judges because each district is a separate county-wide 

judicial district in which the trial judge enjoys plenary power, 

and, as a matter of law, there can be no dilution in the election 

of a candidate to fill a single member office; therefore, the 

election of state district judges falls within the "single-member 

exception" to § 2(b). Judge Johnson alone dissented.’ Judge Wood 

  

Judges Williams and Garwood recused themselves. Judge Reavley 
participated in the en banc hearings and discussion of the case but 
subsequently took senior status and determined that he should not 

- 7 -  



  

had advanced and strongly urged both the position adopted by the 

majority for whom Judge Gee wrote and that adopted by the five 

judges from whom Judge Higginbotham wrote. 

X. 

As set forth in greater detail in Judge Wood's Brief, a 

prevailing Defendant-Intervenor in a civil rights suit on the side 

of the government is entitled to his attorneys' fees if (1) the 

governmental litigant did not adequately address his interest, 

(2) the intervenor proposed different theories and arguments from 

the government, and (3) the work the intervenor performed was 

valuable to the Court. For the reasons set forth above and in the 

Brief, Judge Wood's participation in this case was vital to 

achieving any appellate review of the district court's opinion at 

all--much less to overturning that opinion by a margin of twelve to 

one. These results were achieved only because Judge Wood committed 

herself and her own personal finances, at considerable sacrifice, 

to this public interest litigation. Therefore, as a prevailing 

Defendant-Intervenor who materially advanced the public interest in 

clarifying the scope of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and upholding 

the constitutional and statutory rights of Texas voters, Judge Wood 

should be allowed to recover her attorneys' fees from the State of 

Texas, which as the party charged with responsibility for the 

  

therefore, participate in the decision. However, he indicated in 
footnote to the opinion that he agreed with Judge Higginbotham. 
Banc. Slip Op. at 1 (Higginbotham, J., concurring). 

a 

n 

 



  

defense of this suit, materially benefitted from her intervention 

and active advocacy in this cause. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District Judge 

Sharolyn Wood respectfully requests that the Court award her, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 19731(e) and 1988, her reasonable and 

necessary attorneys' fees from the State of Texas together with 

such other and further relief to which she may show herself justly 

entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

   
a or 
le re ———— oe 
  

. Eugene Clements 
\. velyn V. Keyes 
~~———"3500 NCNB Center 

P.O. Box 4744 

Houston, Texas 77210-4744 
Phone: (713) 226-0600 
Fax: (713) 228-1331 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 
INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
REN EI 0 

I hereby certify that on this 7 day of October, 1990, a 
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 
mailed to all counsel of record by first class United States mail, 
postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

 



  

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 

Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 N. St. Mary's St., #521 

San Antonio, Texas 78250 

- 10 - 

 



  

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 
Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 
2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019 

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 
Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

 



  

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Lt 1 
EVELYN VS KEYES Ll   

3285C:\DOCS\W0027001\002 

- 12 - 

 



% : 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 
NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

AFFIDAVIT OF J. EUGENE CLEMENTS 

STATE OF TEXAS § 

COUNTY OF HARRIS : 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared 

J. Eugene Clements, who, being by me first duly sworn on his oath, 

deposed and said: 

1. My name is J. Eugene Clements. I am over the age of 
eighteen (18) years and am fully competent to make this 
Affidavit which is based on my personal knowledge of the 
matters set forth herein. 

 



  

2. I am a founding partner in the Houston, Texas law 
firm of Porter & Clements and am attorney of record for 
Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District Judge Sharolyn 
Wood ("Judge Wood") in the above-referenced case. I received 
my undergraduate B.A. degree magna cum laude from Harvard 
University in 1963 and my J.D. from the University of Texas in 
1966. I have been engaged in the practice of law in Harris 
County, Texas since 1966 and have handled many complex 
litigation suits. I am familiar with Harris County politics 
and with Harris County judicial elections. 

3. Attached hereto under seal for the court as Exhibit 
"1" are privileged and confidential contemporaneous time 
records prepared by Porter & Clements at or near the time when 
they were recorded. They record all work for which a fee is 
claimed and reflect the hours or fractional hours of work done 
and the specific professional level of services performed by 
each lawyer for whom compensation is sought, as required by 
Fed. R. App. P. 47.8.1. Attached as Exhibit "2" is a summary 
of the information contained in Exhibit "1" prepared by George 
Booz, a paralegal at Porter & Clements. I have reviewed 
Exhibit "2," and it is an accurate summary of the information 
in Exhibit "1." 

4. I am personally familiar with the skills, experience 
and abilities of the attorneys and paralegals whose work is 
reflected in Exhibits "1" and "2" and I have reviewed the 
hourly rates charged. I think the rates are reasonable, 
considering the abilities, reputation and experience of the 
attorneys involved and the customary rates charged by 
comparable law firms in Harris County, Texas, for services 
rendered by attorneys and paralegals on complex civil 
litigation matters. 

5. The legal services rendered by Porter & Clements 
were necessary for the successful prosecution of this case. 
Because of the nature and complexities of the case, the 
expertise and vigor of opposing counsel, the time and labor 
required, the novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skills 
requisite to perform the legal services properly, the 
preclusion of other employment by the attorneys at Porter & 
Clements due to the acceptance of this case, the customary 
fees charged by comparable attorneys and firms in Harris 
County, Texas for complex legal services, the time constraints 
imposed under the circumstances in this case, and the 
experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys involved. 

6. This was a complex civil rights case involving 
numerous claims and defenses and technical subject matters. 
In addition, this case required intense familiarity with 
Harris County politics in general and state district judge 

 



  

elections in particular, as well as familiarity with the 
demographics of Harris County. 

7. Given the status of the State of Texas' case prior 
to the intervention of Judge Wood and her retention of Porter 
& Clements as attorneys on this case, it was unlikely that the 
defense could prevail at trial and on appeal. This is true 
because the State of Texas had not initiated discovery before 
the intervention of Judge Wood and because the State settled 
with the Plaintiffs while Judge Wood sought to appeal the 
injunction issued by the district court in this case on 
January 2, 1990 enjoining district judge elections in all 
Texas counties targeted by the suit and she also sought 
expedited interlocutory appeal of the district court's Opinion 
of November 8, 1989 on the merits. 

8. Porter & Clements performed all discovery for Harris 
County, defended Harris County at trial, and filed numerous 
motions and briefs both in the district court and in the Court 
of Appeals regarding the merits of the defense. Porter & 
Clements also argued on Judge Wood's behalf and on behalf of 
the defense at the circuit court of appeals panel hearing and 
en banc hearing of this case. 

9. All of the above activities were conducted under 
severe time constraints posed by the short time between Judge 
Wood's intervention on February 27, 1989, trial of this highly 
complex litigation on September 18, 1989, and expedited 
appeal. 

10. Further affiant sayeth not. 

  

    
  

SNE 

a a Br i 
J.| EUGENE CLEMENTS ne 

LW 
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN “TO B ORE ME on this | 7 day of 

  

October, 1990. 

SA, i ! 

ewe {. Senrdlli/ 
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

   
  

    “CYNTHIA 0. SOND 
Notary Public 

STATE OF TEXAS 
My Comm. Exp. 03-2192 § 

        

3285C: \DOCS\W0027001\011 

 



E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 1 

 
 

 



  

EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL WITH THE COURT 

 



E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 2 

 
 

 



  

  

  

      

  

  

  

  

  

  

        

  

  

  

    
        

  

  

  

  

        

  

  

  

  

  
          

  

  

  

ATTORNEYS’ FEES - U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

NAME RATE HOURS FEES 

ee ———————— -_ me ———————————————————————————————————— Atl Cll el l Cl llr nn — — AAR eA RRS sects ey CS SS ———————————— 

Partners 

Joseph Eugene Clements $300.00 534.75 $160,425.00 

John E. O’Neill 225.00 10.75 2,418.75 

Joanne M. Vorpahl 175.00 «50 87.50 

Associates 

Cheri L. Duncan 110.00 17.75 1,952.50 

Sara J. Fendia 85.00 3.25 276.25 

Evelyn V. Keyes 90.00 848.75 76,387.50 

Paralegals 

Carol Coburn McClain 60.00 39.75 2,385.00 

Wendy Crowdus 60.00 9.00 540.00 

Michael S. Flanagan 60.00 227.00 13,620.00 

Law Clerks 

Vineet Bhatia 45.00 10.50 472.50 

John L. Dagley 45.00 1.45 65.25 

Dan J. Schnurman 45.00 16.00 720.00 

Scott R. Sweet 45.00 15.75 708.75 

Clerks (Paralegal Assistants) 

William R. Forbes 25.00 7.50 187.50 

L.A. Novacinski 25.00 8.50 212.50 
  

    TOTALS:     1101.20 $260,459.00 
        

:\DOCS\W0027001\0002 

  

  
EXHIBIT 2 

    

 



  

ATTORNEYS’ FEES - U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
  

  
  

  

  

    

NAME RATE 

    
  

  

FEES 

  

        

  

  

  

  

        

  

  

  

  

  

    

Partners 

Joseph Eugene Clements £315.00 229.00 $72,135.00 

Associates 

Ruth B. Downs 85.00 6.40 544.00 

Cheri L. Duncan 125.00 17.25 2,156.25 

Evelyn V. Keyes 100.00 401.75 40,175.00 

Paralegals 

George G. Boos 75.00 4.00 300.00 

Michael S. Flanagan 60.00 44.00 2,640.00 

Belinda L. Schmidt 65.00 10.00 650.00 

TOTALS: 212.90 $118,600.25 

              

  

:\DOCS\W0027001\0002 

  

 



  

ATTORNEYS’ FEES - U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
  

  

    

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

(Tasks) 

Petitions, 

NAME Briefs & Motions Discovery Depositions Trial Post Trial Totals 

(rate) Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees 

Joseph Eugene Clements 

($300.00) 177.75 53,325.00 50.00 15,000.00 117.50 35,250.00 88.25 26,475.00 101.25 30,375.00 534.75 $160,425.00 

John E. O’Neill 

($225.00) 10.75 2,418.75 10.75 2,418.75 

Joanne M. Vorpahl 

($175.00) 50 87.50 .50 87.50 % 

Cheri L. Duncan 

($110.00) 17.75 1,952.50 17.75 1.952.350 

Sara J. Fendia 

($85.00) 3.25 276.25 3.25 276.25 

Evelyn V. Keyes 

($90.00) 193.25 17,392.50 141.25 12,712.50 119.00 10,710.00 214.25 19,282.50 181.00 16,290.00 848.75 76,387.50 

Carol Coburn McClain 

($60.00) 12.00 720.00 27.75 1,665.00 39.75 2,385.00 

Wendy Crowdus 

($60.00) 9.00 540.00 9.00 540.00 

Michael S. Flanagan 

($60.00) 45.50 2,730.00 51.50 3,090.00 125.50 7,530.00 4.50 270.00 227.00 13,620.00 

Vineet Bhatia : 

($45.00) 10.50 472.50 10.50 472.50 

John L. Dagley 

($45.00) 1.45 65.25 1.45 65.25 

Dan J. Schnurman 

($45.00) 16.00 720.00 16.00 720.00 

Scott R. Sweet 

($45.00) 15.75 708.75 15.75 708.75 

William R. Forbes 

($25.00) 7.50 187.50 7.50 187.50 

L.A. Novacinski 

(325.00) 8.50 212.50 8.50 212.50 

Totals: 405 00 | 74,512.50 297.95 33,056.51 315.75 50.715.00 428.00 53,287.50 304.50 48.887.50 1,751.20 $260.459.00       

C:\DOCS\W0027001\0003 
                            

  

  

  

 



  

ATTORNEYS’ FEES - COURT OF APPEALS 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

                  

(Tasks) 

Petitions, 

NAME Motions & Briefs Panel Argument Post Submission En Banc Post En Banc Totals 
(rate) Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees Hours Fees 

Joseph Eugene Clements 

($315.00) 123.00 38,745.00 26.50 8,347.50 34.00 10,710.00 30.00 9,450.00 15.50 4,882.50 229.00 $72,135.00 

Ruth B. Downs 

($85.00) 6.40 544.00 6.40 544.00 

Cheri L. Duncan 

($125.00) 17.25 2,156.25 17.25 2,156.25 

Evelyn V. Keyes 

($100.00) 240.75 24,075.00 31.75 3,175.00 46.50 4,650.00 49.00 4.900.00 33.75 3,375.00 401.75 40,175.00 

George G.Boos 

($75.00) 4.00 300.00 4.00 300.00 

Michael S. Flanagan 

($60.00) 15.00 900.00 29.00 1,740.00 44.00 2,640.00 

Belinda L. Schmidt 

($65.00) 10.00 650.00 10.00 650.00 

Totals: 378.75 63.720.00 58.25 11,522.50 80.50 15.360.00 96.25 16.506.25 98.65 11,491.50 712.40 $1 18.600.25                       

        

  C:\DOCS\WO0027001\0003 

®