Izen Jr v. Comm'n For Lawyer Discipline
Decision Date | 28 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 01-07-01114-CV.,01-07-01114-CV. |
Parties | Joe Alfred IZEN Jr., Appellant, v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Joe A. Izen Jr., Bellaire, TX, for Appellant.
Cynthia Canfield Hamilton, Senior Appellate Counsel, Linda A. Acevedo, Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Austin, TX, Shannon B. Sauceda, Timothy R. Bersch, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, ALCALA, and HANKS.
This appeal concerns a telephone book advertisement and two website advertisements by a Texas attorney, appellant, Joe Alfred Izen Jr., who was prosecuted by the appellee, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (the “Commission”). Izen appeals the judgment that suspends his license to practice law, probated for 24 months, for various violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (hereafter, “the Rules”). In six issues challenging the jury's verdict and the trial court's judgment, Izen contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient; his due process rights were violated; there is a conflict in the jury's answers; the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings; the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; and the trial court erred by allowing the jury to deliberate when the judge was outside of Harris County. We conclude that Izen's due process rights were not violated by the Commission's prosecution of the violations of the Rules by the websites and that those violations are each independent grounds sufficient to uphold the judgment. We also conclude that the remainder of Izen's complaints are either waived or are alternative grounds that are unnecessary to support the judgment. We affirm.
Izen, an attorney licensed to practice in Texas, employed Joe D. Sanchez, who was not an attorney. Izen placed three advertisements. One was an advertisement that appeared in a Brady, Texas telephone directory and two were websites. In describing the background of this case, we discuss (A) a description of the three advertisements, (B) the Committee's administrative action, (C) the jury trial, and (D) the post-verdict motions filed by Izen.
He has won numerous battles with the IRS. It can be our hope that we not only can win many more important battles against abusive government agencies, but that we can be part of the reform efforts of some of these agencies in order to bring them back into their proper role of public servants which will then gain back public acceptance.
None of these advertisements were filed with the Advertising Review Committee (hereafter “the Committee”) before their dissemination.
Following dissemination of the three advertisements, the Committee sent a letter to Izen in January 2003 concerning the Brady advertisement. The letter told Izen that the dissemination of the Brady advertisement violated Part 7 of the Rules because it was not filed with the Committee before its dissemination. The letter also informed Izen that he had 20 days to administratively resolve the violations of Part 7 by filing the advertisement, and paying filing and late-filing fees. The offer of an administrative resolution concerned the Part 7 violations by the Brady advertisement only. A copy of the Brady advertisement was attached to the Committee's letter.
In response to the Committee's letter, Izen submitted an application for review of the Brady advertisement, along with the $300 filing fee, and a copy of the Brady advertisement. Izen did not mention either www. joeizen. com or www. divorceintexas. net in anything he filed with the Committee. The form application sent by Izen had a section to identify the “Nature of advertisement or written solicitation” made the subject of the application. Izen put an “X” in the blank next to “Telephone Directory” and did not mark the blank next to “Other (billboards, websites, etc.)” or indicate any website's URL address in the space indicated on the form. The only mention concerning any internet-related item in Izen's response to the Committee appears in the portion concerning his contact information. This section contains blanks for the applicant to fill in information such as “Lawyer,” “Bar Card #,” “Firm,” “Firm's Principal Office Address,” “Phone,” “Fax,” and “E-mail.” In the blank following the term “E-mail,” Izen wrote “joeizen@ joeizen. com.”
The Committee did not administratively resolve any of Izen's violations. The Committee referred the violations in the Brady advertisement, as well as violations it discovered concerning the two websites, to the Commission. The Commission filed a petition in district court.
The case was tried before a jury and presided over by Judge Jean Boyd, who was appointed by the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex.R. Disciplinary P. 3.02, reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. A-1 (Vernon 2005) (providing for appointment of active district judge who does not reside in Administrative Judicial District in which respondent resides). After the close of evidence, the jury began deliberating on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. At the end of that day, the jury was instructed to return to court at 10 a.m. the next morning, although there was concern that “a huge storm, perhaps a hurricane” was approaching Houston. The trial court judge, who was not from the area, left Harris County. The storm, however, was not as bad as anticipated and the jury appeared in court the next day. Sometime during the morning, the jury sent a question to the judge. The judge did not answer the question but instead instructed the bailiff to tell the jury to go home and return the next morning, Friday, September 14. The judge returned to court Friday morning, answered the jury's question, and, later that day, received the jury's verdict.
The jury was asked 12 questions concerning possible violations of the Rules. 1 The jury found for Izen and against him on certain questions concerning (1) the Brady advertisement, (2) the www. divorceintexas. net website, and (3) the www. joeizen. com website.
Concerning the Brady advertisement, the jury found in favor of the Commission, as follows:
file a copy of each advertisement in the public media with the Lawyer Advertisement and Solicitation Review Committee of the State Bar of Texas” [Rule 7.07(b) ];
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guimaraes v. Brann, 01-16-00093-CV
...analysis of the legal issues presented results in waiver of a complaint on appeal. Izen v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline , 322 S.W.3d 308, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) ("Issues on appeal are waived if an appellant fails to support his contentions by citations to appr......
-
Abbott v. G.G.E
...determining that inmate had constitutionally protected property interest in account); Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 320 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (“the remedy for denial of due process is due process); Lee v. Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 27......
-
In re G.P.
...and to the record." TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Conclusory statements are simply not enough. Izen v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 321-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (brief containing "conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations" and no "clear ar......
-
Castille v. Serv. Datsun, Inc.
...authority" or their "brief fails to contain a clear argument for the contentions made." Izen v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 321-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (internal quotations omitted); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S......