04.09.2014 Views

Petition for Writ of Prohibition - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Prohibition - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Prohibition - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

This is documented ins<strong>of</strong>ar as is possible in Relator’s Appendix and Exhibits,<br />

1,639 pages above filed May 27, 2010.<br />

10a. That is why this <strong>Court</strong>’s mandatory Rule 3.07 (briefed fully, filed May 27,<br />

2010 and adopted by reference herein from his accompanying <strong>Petition</strong>s <strong>for</strong> <strong>Writ</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Mandamus, Injunction and <strong>Prohibition</strong> were jointly filed May 27, 2010.<br />

This<br />

was the first time Relator sought relief in this <strong>Court</strong> <strong>for</strong> thirty-three months.<br />

Relator, see fn.1 at p.1, expresses his appreciation to this court and its clerks<br />

<strong>for</strong> calling to his attention on June 16, 2010, that his filing May 27, 2010, joint,<br />

triple filing <strong>of</strong> all three <strong>Petition</strong>s, had to be refiled, procedurally filed separately.<br />

Hence, these three separately filings, on May 27, 2010 and now, (these two<br />

additional Relator’s petitions writs <strong>of</strong> prohibition and injunction<br />

contemporaneously filed herewith; each adopts the other by reference in true<br />

interests <strong>of</strong> judicial economy.<br />

b. Relators’ clients are numerous. Almost all involve personal injury and death<br />

cases. Out <strong>of</strong> all these clients, CLD (State Bar) has singled out only two <strong>for</strong><br />

allegations <strong>of</strong> improper solicitation in alleged violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Texas</strong> Disciplinary<br />

Rules <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Conduct (DR 7.03(a)-(f) effective (January 1, 2005).<br />

c. One complaint was not by the client, Mr. Charles Touchet, but by a<br />

disgruntled, second in true order <strong>of</strong> two <strong>for</strong>mer, prior attorneys in Louisiana, Mr. J.<br />

Quentin Simon.<br />

That case settled, in federal court more than a year ago. The<br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!