I dunno, this seems awfully straightforward to me. But no one asked me.
Some Texas Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical Thursday of a professional misconduct case against a top aide to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for his role in filing a suit to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
In oral arguments on First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster’s case, Justice Jimmy Blacklock questioned whether a committee of the State Bar of Texas, which brought the suit, was acting based on politics.
“It’s hard for me to understand how this case is anything other than a government entity taking a particular view of that disputed political question and then insisting that the attorney general of Texas take the same view and not side with the 50% of people who had questions about the election,” Blacklock said.
The way the all-Republican high court ultimately rules could indicate how the justices decide a similar case before them against Paxton, a third-term Republican.
[…]
Michael Graham, lead counsel for the bar’s Commission on Lawyer Discipline, said he did not agree that concerns about the election are limited to members of one political party. He added that making a misrepresentation in court is a violation regardless of who believes it’s true.
Graham said this case followed the normal grievance process laid out by bar rules, and he emphasized that it was initiated not by the bar but after a review by the chief disciplinary counsel of many outside complaints. The counsel had initially opted to dismiss the complaint, but the case was revived when the complainants appealed to the bar’s board of disciplinary appeals, whose members are appointed by the Texas Supreme Court. Webster chose to resolve the case in a district court rather than through an administrative panel.
“If hearing from those two independent bodies the commission then decides, ‘We’re just going to dismiss it because it’s the attorney general or it’s the first assistant attorney general. This is a can of worms we just don’t open’ – to me, that sounds political,” Graham said. “I think that’s a problem. And I think the commission thinks that’s a problem. So that’s why we find ourselves here today.”
Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson, representing Webster, argued Thursday that allowing the case to move forward would violate the separation of powers principle by allowing the judicial branch to interfere with an official action of the executive branch.
Graham said the Supreme Court has the authority to regulate the practice of law, and it does not violate separation of powers because the Bar committee isn’t taking issue with the filing of the suit itself but rather specific claims made within it. The suit alleges that Paxton and Webster made “dishonest” representations that were not supported by evidence, some of which had already been dismissed in other courts.
Nielson also argued that Webster is subject to sovereign immunity, a legal principle that generally shields government officials from being sued in their official capacity. The bar has argued, as Graham reiterated Thursday, it is not suing Webster in his official capacity but rather as a Texas-licensed attorney.
See here for the previous update. The issue all along has been the (alleged) lying, by Brent Webster and Ken Paxton, in their legal attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Everyone knows you’re not suppose to lie in a court of law. When witnesses do it, they face perjury charges. When the lawyers do it, they face professional discipline processes. That’s what the State Bar is doing here. They may ultimately conclude that what Paxton and Webster did doesn’t meet their standard for lying – I’m using that word in the colloquial sense, not as a legal term of art; the distinctions between varying shades of presenting false statements as factual are only relevant if the case goes forward, and I’m not required to give these jackwagons the benefit of the doubt – but first they have to look into it. That’s all that the Court is being asked to do. I really hope they’re up to it. The Texas Standard has more.
Court proceedings have a number of unique privileges, but those privileges also come with responsibilities on the part of the lawyers. For example, you can’t be sued for libel for statements in a court filing. Likewise, you can make an argument that isn’t in line with the currently understood state of the law, so long as you can demonstrate that you’re making a good faith argument for a different interpretation of existing law (yes, that can be a white knuckle moment). However, just like garden variety libel isn’t protected free speech, both the party and the lawyer representing that party are subject to sanctions for knowingly making a false statement in court.
It makes sense to take this case out of the confidential grievance process and bring it over to the more public forum of the courthouse, if for no other reason than the optics. After all, someone’s not going to be happy regardless of which way it turns out.