|
The Enos Law Firm
17207 Feather Craft Lane, Webster, Texas 77598
(281) 333-3030 Fax: (281) 488-7775
Please forward this e-mail newsletter to everyone who cares about our family courts!
Click here for an archive of past issues of The Mongoose.
|
 |
Scant little scandal provides minimal incentive to put out this newsletter when there is actual lawyer work to be done, a seminar to plan, a new website dedicated to Senator Ted Cruz to develop (click here to behold TedCruzTalk.com), articles to write, a grandchild to spoil and a "new" old house to renovate. Also, as you will read below, this issue required a lot of data analysis and number crunching. I apologize to my loyal readers for the many weeks between issues.
It is cruelly ironic to litigate against attorneys who actually read my legal articles in this newsletter and then throw them back in my firm's face. The smart and oh-so-witty David Thornton sent this letter in an argument on calculating child support when one child lives primarily with one parent while the other parent has custody of a sibling:
Click here to learn more about the first legal seminar sponsored by this newsletter. The Ultimate Discovery Seminar on March 12 will explain in three hours how to send and respond to discovery in an efficient, correct and high tech way. The $90 fee for 3.0 CLE hours is 100% refundable if you think the seminar is boring or is not practical, useful, or fast paced. There will be two bonus presentations on "The State of Same-Sex Marriage and Divorce" and "Using an iPad in Court for Exhibits and Videos."
I do not expect to win every case. I just want an efficient system in which my client gets a fair hearing before a judge who works hard, knows the law, and does not play favorites. I also expect judges to appoint qualified amicus attorneys who zealously look after children (and actually visit the kids in their homes). Is that asking too much? Stay tuned.
Greg Enos
|
 Has the CPS Appointment Battle for Ethics and Propriety Already Been Won?
It is possible I may have won my battle to clean up the appointment of attorneys in CPS cases and no none bothered to tell me. At least in all the family courts, it appears that appointments in CPS cases are now being spread out evenly with no one attorney with special political pull getting a lot more appointments than anyone else. My sources in the County Auditor's office also suggest that the total amount that appointees in CPS cases are billing the county is down significantly since I started my lonely campaign to clean up this little noticed area of the law. I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the District Clerk and asked for data on appointments of attorneys in CPS cases in the family courts and in the juvenile courts. I only asked for appointments for September through December 2014 for the family courts, which would show appointments after I exposed the CPS ad litem billing scandal in August. The data provided by the District Clerk shows that there were 157 appointments of attorneys in CPS cases in the family courts during the last four months of 2014. Gary Polland only had four appointments (3 from the 311th, one from the 308th). The most appointments any one attorney had during that period was seven (Brad Medland and Claudia Canales each got seven), or just five percent of the total. Click here for the list of the attorneys with the most CPS appointments in the family courts for that four month period. My request for data on attorneys appointed in CPS cases in the juvenile courts for the last two years ran into a surprising obstacle. It turns out that the clerks in the juvenile courts do not enter the names and roles of attorneys into the District Clerk database like they do in family, civil or criminal courts. I can look at a family case on the District Clerk website and see who the attorneys are and what their role in the case is (Amicus Attorney or represents Respondent, for example). Amazingly, that information is not even entered into the computer in the juvenile courts in most cases.
The vast majority of the CPS appointments and the dirty money being paid in those cases come out of the juvenile courts. I was finally able to obtain a spreadsheet from the District Clerk that shows for 2014 each time a lawyer was awarded an appointment fee in cases in juvenile court. I sorted the spreadsheet by bar number, extracted Gary Polland's cases, eliminated duplicates (since sometimes fees are awarded more than once on the same case) and then counted the number of cases. It appears that Gary Polland was appointed on 209 different cases in the juvenile courts in 2014 (which should include both CPS and juvenile criminal cases). Over half of those appointments were made by Judge Phillips.
Gary Polland Hits the $2 Million Mark
In Payments from Harris County!
I asked the County Auditor for an updated report on what Harris County has paid Gary Polland as well as the total paid to all attorneys for court appointments. For the five years from 2010 through 2014, Gary Polland was paid a total of $2,091,190.19 by Harris County. This figure includes pay for such things as the mental health docket in the probate courts that is for some reason is not included in the report on fees paid appointed attorneys. Put another way, Polland has been paid more by Harris County in the last five years than the combined pay of the three juvenile district judges during that same period. The County Auditor provided another report which totals the fees paid appointed attorneys during the same 2010 - 2014 period. Again, this report does not capture some fees paid by the county, only fees coded as being paid to appointed attorneys. Gary Polland was number one on this list. Click here to see the entire list of those paid over $500,000 in those five years. Here are a few names you might recognize: |
Rank
|
Name
|
Amount
| | 1 | Gary Polland |
$1,825,498
| | 3 | National Screening Center |
$1,769,550
| | 11 | George Clevenger |
$1,079,912
| | 14 | Angela Phea |
$1,068,984
| | 22 | Claudia Canales |
$906,004
| | 28 | Alicia Franklin |
$822,854
| | 33 | Ronnie Harrison |
$783,454
|
"Do Nothing" Devon Anderson Still Protecting Her Republican Cronies I have yet to hear from the District Attorney about any investigation into Alicia Franklin or Gary Polland for their CPS billing practices. On Gary Polland, I provided the DA with a mountain of information, including information on a mother who recorded Polland's home visit on a CPS case. Her recording and testimony would seem to prove he did not spend the hours he billed the county for on that case, which (if true) would be a crime. That lady has not been contacted by the DA in the three months since I filed my criminal complaint against Polland, according to her attorney. Perhaps the woman is mistaken or lying, but she should at least be interviewed if any sort of real investigation is underway. Someone needs to investigate why Devon Anderson is not doing her job in regards to Judge Franklin and especially Gary Polland. I know that Devon Anderson is going to count on Polland to endorse her next year when Anderson will likely face an opponent in the Republican primary. Polland, while supposedly under investigation by Anderson's office, has already started singing Ms. Anderson's praises in his newsletter, something the DA will need to fend off a primary challenger. It appears to be a situation of "Gary helps Devon and Devon keeps Gary safe from liberal rascals like Greg Enos."  I also know that Anderson's campaign does business with Polland because her campaign finance reports show payments to Polland's Texas Conservative Review for "advertising" in Polland's mailers.  Does DA Anderson not recuse herself in cases where she personally knows and does business with the potential criminal defendant? How stinky does this look?
A Final Round of Lawyer Shake Downs (Judicial Fundraisers)
I understand that our fine, hard working family court judges have to get elected and we are all stuck with our current system that forces judges to raise campaign money from attorneys. However, enough is enough. The not-so-good news is that most of our newly elected family court judges have scheduled one more round of parties to shake down lawyers for money one last time. The really good news is that judges elected in 2014 cannot accept campaign contributions after March 4, 2015, so the season of asking lawyers for donation after donation is almost over. "Pants on Fire" Parties For Franklin and Prine?
Judges Franklin and Prine called their parties "retire the debt" events even though their most recent campaign finance reports show they owe no debts for their campaigns. Canon 5 of the Judicial Canon of Ethics says,"(1) A judge or judicial candidate shall not: ... (ii) knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the ... qualifications, ... or other fact concerning the candidate..." As shown below, Franklin had $16,736 in the bank after her successful 2014 campaign and Prine had $27,500 in his campaign coffers. Neither Franklin or Prine listed any outstanding loans for their campaigns as of December 31, 2014 (as shown in reports filed January 15, 2015).    
I e-mailed both Prine and Franklin and asked them to explain why they would advertise their parties as "retire the debt" events when their campaigns did not really owe any loans. Neither judge replied, which to me at least confirms that my facts are correct.
Just to be fair to them, I checked the Schedule G forms attached to Prine's and Franklin's campaign finance reports. Candidates use Schedule G to report campaign expenditures from personal funds that they hope to repay from political contributions. Such personal expenditures are not technically "debts" since they are not loans and do not have to be repaid. There are limits on how much candidates can repay themselves for such personal expenditures ($25,000 per election cycle for Harris County judicial races). Judge Prine's personal expenditures on his Schedule G forms totaled $2,515.58 and thus he already has plenty of campaign funds to repay himself. Prine did not need to seek contributions to "retire a debt" because he apparently has no campaign debt. Judge Franklin was a different matter. I added all of her reported personal expenditures on her Schedule G forms and came up with $21,556.27, which is $4,820.27 more than the campaign funds she had in the bank on December 31. Franklin thus did not have enough in her campaign coffers to repay herself for all of her personal expenditures she spent on her campaign. Franklin no doubt would prefer to pay herself back, but she does not have to. Is it accurate to call raising money to pay herself back "retiring debt?" I am not sure, but it is at least arguable and so I will give her a pass on this one. I realize that "retire the debt" sounds a lot better than "I am asking lawyers who practice in my court to donate money that I can take home and deposit in my own personal bank account." The real ethical problem here may be with our Election Code that allows this to happen.
I wish both judges had communicated with me to provide their explanations for the ways they advertised their final campaign events. I stand ready to give you their side of the story if they ever see fit to provide it.
In Galveston County, Family District Judge Anne Darring actually does have a campaign debt of $55,500 and her supporters are hosting a party on March 4 at Dan Amerson's mediation offices in League City that truthfully will help raise funds to retire a reported campaign loan.
Enough is Enough Already!
Prine, Franklin, Lombardino and Dean "suggest" a minimum donation of just $1,000 in their invitations. Most regular attorneys, after almost two years of giving to various campaigns, cannot afford to cough up another $4,000 to give to four judges whose campaigns are over and who right now do not even need the money (except for possibly Judge Franklin). So, these events end up being just for the same small gaggle of "big dollar" lawyers who can cheerfully afford the "suggested minimum contribution" and who are part of the vicious cycle of judges helping attorneys make money and attorneys using that money to finance judicial campaigns. It almost makes me miss wacky aunt Bonnie Hellums, who would not solicit or accept any donations from family law attorneys.
After March 4, Harris County family court judges elected in 2014 cannot raise or spend campaign funds for another two and a half years. The judges cannot spend the campaign funds they have in their campaign accounts until the next election season, except for very small donations to political parties and "officeholder expenditures" (an expenditure to defray expenses incurred by an officeholder in connection with the officeholder's duties or activities of office if the expenses are not reimbursable with public money).
These judges who are still trying to raise even more money are merely trying to get a jump start on their reelection campaigns in three years. This is just too much to ask of attorneys after a solid year of donating to candidates. Lawyers should simply say "enough is enough" and not donate any more. Attorneys should go to the parties but only donate $1, eat the food, drink their booze and dare George Clevenger to throw them out.
Judge Sheri Y. Dean has $44,442 in her campaign coffers and yet she is also asking lawyers to pony up one last time tomorrow night.
Judge James Lombardino is also accepting a final round of donations at a party on March 2, presumably because he is down to just $10,052 left in his campaign coffers. Lombardino asks attorneys to RSVP to Susan Clevenger, as did Charley Prine. Hmm, that name sounds familiar.
Judge Roy Moore, who faced no opponent in either the Republican primary or the general election (because he is that damn good of a judge), has $106,010 in the bank for his campaign and even he is still fundraising one last time this evening. Moore is at least honest when he calls his party a "build for the future" event. Moore's invitation on Facebook says his party is to "thank" us and that no minimum contribution is requested. 
|
|
|
|
"Together, attorneys can improve our family courts!"
Galveston County Court ChartAttorney General Contact Info
Valuable Attorney General Contact InformationKathy Vossler was kind enough to share a very useful listing of contact information for the Texas Attorney General Child Support Division in the Houston area. Click here to down load AG Contact information.
Vossler explained to me that the entire agency has been revamped and most contact information has changed. The outlying offices that serve Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Montgomery Counties are still being run as they have been. It is the Harris County AG's offices that have undergone huge changes.
To reach any Houston-area attorney at the Attorney General's office by fax, use (713)780-2986.
NOTE- the old fax numbers listed on old pleadings still ring, and from your end, it will seem like you sent a fax. But, those numbers are not monitored. You will not get a response.
To reach a particular Assistant Attorney General (AAG) via e-mail use this e-mail address:
If you do not know which AAG you will be working with, or if you are sending pleadings, correspondence & etc., you should use their "legal" e-mail, which is: csd-legal-615@
TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov.
Interesting Appellate Cases Just Decided
Hancock v. Hancock, No. 01-14-00089-CV (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2/3/2015), is a prime example of how a trial court's award of post-divorce spousal maintenance (what the Yankees up north call "alimony") is almost impossible to reverse on appeal. This is a case I tried in Galveston and my 59 year old client got $3,300 a month in support for three years despite being awarded a house and $760,000 in retirement benefits. One lesson from this case is that a spouse does not have to live off all assets awarded her in order to get spousal maintenance. Also, these factors make an award of "alimony" much more likely in every case:
- The longer the marriage and the older the spouse, the more likely a judge will award spousal support.
- A spouse who makes a lot and who did his wife dirty is more likely to be hit with a order to pay "alimony."
- Expert testimony and even medical records are not required to prove a spouse's medical problems.
- A wife's testimony that she has applied many places for work is very hard to controvert.
Click here to read this case that carefully lays out the law applicable to spousal maintenance and the evidence I presented to win this award.
Upcoming Mongoose Seminars
Every Mongoose Seminar is guaranteed to be practical, useful, fast paced and never boring. 100% of the seminar fee will be refunded if you do not agree. Part of the seminar proceeds will be used to buy bullet-proof vests for Houston area police officers.
Ultimate Discovery Seminar: Answering and Responding to Discovery the Correct, Efficient and High-Tech Way
Click here for details and registration information. We limit attendance, so register early! The price is $90 if you register in advance and $120 at the door.
When: March 12, 2015
Where: Harris County Jury Assembly Auditorium
Cost: $90
CLE Hours: 3.0
Bonus Topics: "The State of Same-Sex Marriage and Divorce" and "Using an iPad in Court for Exhibits and Videos."Results of the Mongoose Judicial Ethics Survey Here are the results of my first ever on-line Mongoose survey, which focused on judges and their spouses. 191 attorneys provided anonymous responses to my questions and 61 provided written comments as well. All judges married to lawyers and their spouses (and fiances) would do well to carefully read these results. My next issue will explore whether Dan Lemkuil will continue to practice in the 308th District Court where his wife serves as Associate Judge.
Should a lawyer who is the spouse of a District Judge accept a new client whose case is already pending in his/her spouse's court with the expectation that the case will be transferred to another court because of the conflict? No 74.7%
Yes 13.1%
Yes, but only if opposing counsel agrees 12.0%
Should a lawyer who is the spouse of a District Judge automatically decline a new case if it is already pending in his/her spouse's court? Yes 88.0%
No 10.8%
If a lawyer who is the spouse of a District Judge or an Associate Judge files a new divorce or SAPCR case that is randomly assigned to his/her spouse's court, do you agree that the case should be randomly re-assigned to another court and the lawyer may still represent the client?Yes 96.7%
No 2.1% Should a lawyer who is the spouse of an Associate Judge accept a new client whose case is already pending in the court where his/her spouse is the AJ?No 72.8%Yes - as long as opposing counsel/parties agree and the AJ/Spouse will never hear or rule on the case 10.8% Yes - as long as the presiding judge is recused or the case goes to another court 15.2% Should a lawyer who is the spouse of an Associate Judge always decline a new client whose case is already pending in the court where his/her spouse is the AJ?
Yes 82.6%No 14.1% No Response 3.2% Should a District Judge ever appoint the spouse of his/her Associate Judge to be an amicus, ad litem, mediator or receiver on a case pending in that judge's court?
Never 82.6%Yes, but only if all parties/counsel on the case agree to the judge's selection 1.0%
Yes, but only if the parties/counsel agree and request the appointment (rather than the judge selecting the AJ's spouse) 15.2%
My survey received many written comments, which included:
This is a no brainer. This is about the "appearance of impropriety". It is about "pillow talk" and it is about greed. Any idea that it is ok for a spouse of a sitting judge or a sitting AJ to ever take a case or appointment in that court is just WRONG.Shame on the AJ, shame on the Judge and shame on the Spouse.
It is the APPEARANCE of impropriety against which we must fight to preserve the integrity of our profession. The fact that a lawyer can ask for a "fix" to overcome what already looks "crooked", "fixed","stacked against the other party" should not be our focus. Our goal must be to avoid going down the path which will require a "fix."
The Mongoose has provided more investigative journalism than the Chronicle, the Daily News, and the Houston Press on judicial ethics this past year. Fight on!!
Love your newsletter and I appreciate all the time it must take from you, your spouse and staff to get it right.
Keep up the good work! Wished you'd asked about the spouse serving as substitute AJ. Another time ...
There are plenty of courts for the spouse to practice in without practicing in the court where his/her spouse is judge. There is a very good chance the non-judge spouse would be hired for that reason alone. The client would think he/she was to get a better deal, who wouldn't? Avoid even an appearance of impropriety, IS THE RULE!
Spouses of judges should never sit as visiting AJ's. Spouses shouldn't both be judges in the same county
I can't believe this is even up for discussion. Why would anyone think this is okay ?
Love the Mongoose. And you still owe me lunch
A New Family Court for Harris County? A bill has been introduced into the Texas Legislature that would create the new 507th Family District Court in Harris County. HR 1167 has been introduced by Rep. Senfronia Thompson and has the backing of Harris County Commissioners. If the bill becomes law as currently worded, the Governor would appoint a judge for the court to start work in September 2015 and the new judge would be in the ballot in November 2016 and possibly again in 2018.
I am sure that the behind-the-scenes politicking has already begun by those who will seek that appointment. The family attorneys in Harris County should start a petition asking the Governor to appoint one of our fine, experienced Associate Judges to this post. We could sign that petition without taking sides or endorsing a particular applicant.
I am moving back to Galveston County this Spring, so Governor Abbott does not have to agonize about whether to appoint me to this bench.
I will keep you informed on the progress of this bill and what you can do to motivate our Representatives and Senators to vote for it when the time comes. Usually, these bills to create new courts (if supported back home in the county involved) are enacted with little controversy.
Galveston County Judges Are Still Battling County Commissioners The Court of Appeals with a one sentence ruling refused to grant a writ of mandamus to make Judge Lonnie Cox rescind his sua sponte order that said Galveston County Commissioners could not fire or replace the Director of Justice Administration Bonnie Quiroga. Quiroga is still fired, however, and now that her tacky e-mails about the judges she supposedly worked for have been leaked, many judges do not want her back. Quiroga is suing the County for wrongful termination.
The County Commissioners are considering an idea to abolish the office of Justice Administration and create a department that mostly does the same thing but reports only to Commissioners. A bill may be introduced to allow Galveston County to create an office of Court Administration, funded by the county but reporting to the judges. These two ideas together were basically the compromise I suggested in December to resolve this impasse.
The judges now fall into one or two of three camps, even if they will not admit it to each other (but will to me): - Lonnie Cox and his followers who want a fight and will not compromise.
- Several judges who now regret following Cox into this box canyon but cannot see a way out.
- Judges who like my idea of a compromise where the county has a department running some court related functions and the judges hire and supervise their own administrator based on a definite statute that creates the position.
|
|
 | |
Attorney Greg Enos
|
Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and child custody battle (he won) and understands what his clients are going through. Enos graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was a very successful personal injury attorney in Texas City before he decided his true calling was to help families in divorce and child custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities. He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of Interfaith Caring Ministries.
|
|
|
