AUSTIN - Several attorneys general are arguing that if the Texas Supreme Court decides to allow a disciplinary action against First Assistant AG Brent Webster to continue it will “open the floodgates.”
According to Webster’s petition for review, an inactive, out-of-state lawyer, who lacks any connection to the underlying litigation, insisted that the first assistant committed professional misconduct by filing a lawsuit on behalf of the state in another jurisdiction regarding the 2020 presidential election procedures in four states.
“That suit was dismissed but did not result in any reprimand or sanction from the relevant Court,” the petition states. “Nevertheless ... the Commission (for Lawyer Discipline) seeks to discipline the First Assistant."
The petition questions whether the State Bar of Texas violated the Texas Constitution’s Separation of Powers Clause.
In its response, the Bar asserted that an appellate court correctly held that the separation of powers doctrine does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Commission’s disciplinary action against Webster.
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who faces similar allegations in a separate case, along with several other AGs, filed an amicus brief on Friday, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court and render judgment in favor of Webster.
“If this case is permitted to proceed, it will open the floodgates to more like it and will undermine State Attorneys General in the discharge of their constitutional duties,” the brief states. “The need to respond to disciplinary complaints of this sort unduly interferes with the ability of State Attorneys General to do their jobs.”
Paxton released a statement today that asserts the Bar is “weaponizing politically-motivated lawfare to intimidate elected leaders and their staff.”
The brief also makes a similar argument.
“The real question in this case… is whether courts will permit the politicization of the State Bars and weaponization of disciplinary rules against elected executive officers discharging their constitutional duties…,” the brief states. “Moreover, there is an appreciable risk that this type of political activism will incentivize bar complaints made for the sole purpose of obstructing the ability of attorneys general and their staff to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.
“The weaponization of the attorney grievance process impedes the work of the people and frustrates the constitutional structure.”
Supreme Court case No. 23-0694