Nobody really knows. Well, nobody who isn’t Ken Paxton, anyway.
How Paxton is paying for his criminal defense — a legal tab estimated to easily exceed a million dollars — is one of the ongoing puzzles in the case against the state’s top lawyer.
Beyond confirming he would not use campaign contributions or taxpayer dollars, which he cannot by law because the case is not related to his public duties, the McKinney Republican has declined to elaborate on how he is covering his legal expenses. Mateja did not respond to a request for comment.
Soliciting donations for a legal defense fund would be difficult without running afoul of the state’s bribery statutes prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts from individuals or entities subject to their authority, which, in the case of the attorney general’s office, could be quite broad.
Paxton could be footing the bill personally. But it’s unclear whether that is an option for the former lawmaker, who earns about $153,000 a year as attorney general. Prior to taking statewide office in 2014, he served in the Legislature for more than a decade, making a living as a lawyer and investor. His 2015 personal financial statement, filed as a part of required disclosures for state officials, reported a number of business and real estate holdings, including a title company and cellular tower.
It’s tough to get a full picture of Paxton’s finances from the statement, which only requires officials to report broad ranges of assets. But it does indicate he has a number of shares in stocks and mutual funds, as well as business assets that amount to a minimum of $35,000.
If Paxton is unwilling or unable to pay his legal team on his own dime, it leaves him in a difficult spot. He could step down from office, which would free him up to raise money for a defense fund. But Paxton has said he will not resign — and he has so far faced no political pressure to do so.
He may find lawyers sympathetic to his plight willing to offer their services pro bono or at a deep discount. That scenario also seems unlikely. (Mateja did not respond to a question about whether any of Paxton’s legal team had discounted their services.)
“A case like Paxton’s could easily consume most, if not all, of a lawyer’s time. Unless the lawyer is independently wealthy, he or she could simply not afford to undertake such a time-consuming case without being paid significant fees,” said Dallas appellate lawyer Chad Ruback in an email. Ruback estimated that the collective rate for Paxton’s team could exceed $3,000 per hour, with a total fee for his defense easily passing one million dollars.
See here for the background. Is it in poor taste for me to note that Paxton could claim indigency and have an attorney provided for him? I’m sure Collin County will be delighted to help out. If anyone thinks this would be unfair to Paxton, I’d remind you that people have been represented by court-appointed attorneys in capital murder cases. Admittedly, that hasn’t always worked out well for the defendants, but as far as the state of Texas and more than a few appeals court justices are concerned, it was all hunky dory. I’m just saying, there is a way forward here that doesn’t involve murky ethics or potential conflicts of interest.
Pingback: Another look at how long the Paxton case could take – Off the Kuff