By Alex Winslow - Texas Watch - Aug. 14, 2007
NOTE: To see a copy of the complaint filed August 14, 2007 against Justice Nathan Hecht, as well as all supporting material.
AUSTIN – Texas Watch filed a new complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) against Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht today, alleging an additional and separate violation of the canons of judicial ethics. This complaint alleges that Hecht’s solicitation of funds from attorneys and other parties with business before the Texas Supreme Court in order to take legal action to clear his record is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Through an open records request, Texas Watch obtained a copy of a previous admonishment issued by the SCJC which serves as a precedent for the complaint filed today. In a 1987 ruling, the Commission admonished then-Justice William Kilgarlin for circumstances similar to those surrounding Hecht today.
Justice Kilgarlin was admonished for soliciting funds from parties practicing before the Court to pay for expenses arising out of a defamation suit meant to clear his name. Hecht’s situation is similar in that he solicited funds from attorneys, lobbyists, and litigants with business before the Court in order to cover legal costs related to his appeal of a 2006 admonishment issued by the SCJC. In a February 3, 2007 solicitation letter, Justice Hecht asked for the funds to “clear my record.”
Alex Winslow, Texas Watch’s Executive Director, wrote to SCJC Executive Director Seana Willing that “the Kilgarlin admonishment appears to be a precedent that can be directly applied to Justice Hecht’s actions.” In both cases, the justices were soliciting contributions from parties with business pending before the Court in an attempt to remove a blot on their reputations.
This new complaint comes after Texas Watch filed three separate complaints with the SCJC, the Texas Ethics Commission, and Travis County District Attorney last month. Those complaints center around a so-called “discount” Hecht received on his legal fees from Jackson Walker, the law firm which represented him to during his appeal of a 2006 SCJC admonishment. In letters to Texas Watch, all of the pertinent authorities have confirmed that they are investigating those complaints.
See Texas Watch
Showing posts with label Texas Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas Watch. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
WHEN NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE, NO ONE IS SAFE - Loss of Accountability Threatens the Safety of Texas Families, Communities
By Alex Winslow - Texas Watch - October 18, 2007
Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow speaks at a press conference about the importance of legal accountability for corporate CEOs like Lord John Browne, the head of BP at the time of the tragic explosion at Texas City that killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more. Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow delivered the following statement about the threats posed to Texas workers, families, and communities when corporate CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability for their actions:
"Today the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in a matter that goes to the core of accountability. The question before the Court today is whether Lord John Browne – the CEO of British Petroleum at the time of the tragic explosion at Texas City that killed 15 Texas workers and injured hundreds more – will have to answer for the decisions he made that led to the explosion.
"But, this is about much more than one man having to answer a few questions. This is about CEO accountability and the threat posed to our communities when corporate CEOs are allowed to make decisions that affect Texas families without having to answer for those decisions.
"The decisions made by corporate CEOs in board rooms all around the world threaten the safety of communities right here in Texas. Children on their way to school, families who breathe our air and drink our water, and small business owners who serve the plant and its workers all face a greater danger when CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability for the decisions they make.
"In Texas, the value of personal responsibility is sacrosanct. Now, I know that Lord Browne isn’t from around these parts, but he should still have to answer for his actions. When I was growing up my mother – like parents everywhere – worked hard to instill in me that if I hurt someone – whether on purpose or on accident – that I was going to have to face the consequences. The same principal applies to Lord Browne and his band of corporate CEOs.
"When CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability, they will invariably cut corners. When they skimp on workplace safety, then there is a higher likelihood of a catastrophic event that spews pollution into our air, threatens the safety of children in nearby schools, and puts families at risk of harm.
"In Texas, no one should be above having to answer for their actions, no one should be allowed to escape accountability, and no one should be able to walk away from dangers they pose without consequence.
"BP consciously decided to put profits ahead of people and Lord Browne was the ultimate decision maker. Along with his cadre of 175 Corporate CEOs who signed on to support him, he is asking the Texas Supreme Court to protect him. Well, where were they when Texas workers and communities needed protecting?
"The corporate CEOs and their special interest lobbyists have ushered in a new era dominated by a corporate immunity movement. No longer are we talking about parity and balance in the legal system. We are talking about a broad expansion of immunity for wrongdoers.
"Today’s hearing typifies their desire to escape responsibility for their actions.
"Sadly the Texas Supreme Court has a long track record of aiding and abetting insurance companies, polluters, and other wrongdoers who are hell-bent on pushing a corporate immunity agenda.
"If the Texas Supreme Court continues to give CEOs like Lord Browne a pass on accountability, then they are sending a message that immunizing foreign corporate wrongdoers is more important than keeping Texas communities safe from environmental, industrial, and workplace disasters."
See Texas Watch
Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow speaks at a press conference about the importance of legal accountability for corporate CEOs like Lord John Browne, the head of BP at the time of the tragic explosion at Texas City that killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more. Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow delivered the following statement about the threats posed to Texas workers, families, and communities when corporate CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability for their actions:
"Today the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in a matter that goes to the core of accountability. The question before the Court today is whether Lord John Browne – the CEO of British Petroleum at the time of the tragic explosion at Texas City that killed 15 Texas workers and injured hundreds more – will have to answer for the decisions he made that led to the explosion.
"But, this is about much more than one man having to answer a few questions. This is about CEO accountability and the threat posed to our communities when corporate CEOs are allowed to make decisions that affect Texas families without having to answer for those decisions.
"The decisions made by corporate CEOs in board rooms all around the world threaten the safety of communities right here in Texas. Children on their way to school, families who breathe our air and drink our water, and small business owners who serve the plant and its workers all face a greater danger when CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability for the decisions they make.
"In Texas, the value of personal responsibility is sacrosanct. Now, I know that Lord Browne isn’t from around these parts, but he should still have to answer for his actions. When I was growing up my mother – like parents everywhere – worked hard to instill in me that if I hurt someone – whether on purpose or on accident – that I was going to have to face the consequences. The same principal applies to Lord Browne and his band of corporate CEOs.
"When CEOs are allowed to avoid accountability, they will invariably cut corners. When they skimp on workplace safety, then there is a higher likelihood of a catastrophic event that spews pollution into our air, threatens the safety of children in nearby schools, and puts families at risk of harm.
"In Texas, no one should be above having to answer for their actions, no one should be allowed to escape accountability, and no one should be able to walk away from dangers they pose without consequence.
"BP consciously decided to put profits ahead of people and Lord Browne was the ultimate decision maker. Along with his cadre of 175 Corporate CEOs who signed on to support him, he is asking the Texas Supreme Court to protect him. Well, where were they when Texas workers and communities needed protecting?
"The corporate CEOs and their special interest lobbyists have ushered in a new era dominated by a corporate immunity movement. No longer are we talking about parity and balance in the legal system. We are talking about a broad expansion of immunity for wrongdoers.
"Today’s hearing typifies their desire to escape responsibility for their actions.
"Sadly the Texas Supreme Court has a long track record of aiding and abetting insurance companies, polluters, and other wrongdoers who are hell-bent on pushing a corporate immunity agenda.
"If the Texas Supreme Court continues to give CEOs like Lord Browne a pass on accountability, then they are sending a message that immunizing foreign corporate wrongdoers is more important than keeping Texas communities safe from environmental, industrial, and workplace disasters."
See Texas Watch
TEXAS SUPREME COURT DEMONSTRATES PRO-DEFENDANT BIAS - 10th Annual Review Confirms Long-Term Trend of Decisions Against Texas Families
By Alex Winslow - Texas Watch - March 29, 2007
AUSTIN – Court Watch, a project of the Texas Watch Foundation, released its tenth annual list of the most anti-consumer decisions handed down by the Texas Supreme Court during the Court’s 2005-2006 term. Called the “Terrible 10,” this list reflects the Court’s pro-defendant bias against Texas families, homeowners, seniors, and small businesses.
This is Court Watch’s tenth annual review of the Texas Supreme Court. Over that time, Court Watch has highlighted the Court’s pro-defendant bias by conducting a statistical examination of the Court, as well as discussing legal trends. Over the ten year history of the Court Watch project, the Court has ruled in favor of defendants an average of 70% of the time.
“For ten years, Court Watch has been monitoring the Texas Supreme Court’s decision-making. We have highlighted various trends and spotlighted specific cases. One thing remains consistent: the Texas Supreme Court is ardently pro-defendant and Texas families are paying the price,” said Alex Winslow, Executive Director of the Texas Watch Foundation.
Lawmakers are considering legislation to consolidate power in the hands of the Texas Supreme Court. Winslow urged lawmakers to maintain judicial accountability and impartiality.
“Local judges in communities all across our state should not have to fear that the pro-defendant Texas Supreme Court is going to intervene in a local matter,” said Winslow. “Local voters elect the judges that they think reflect their values. We should maintain our current system of judicial accountability.”
Included on this year’s Terrible 10 list are cases that allow employers to fire workers for reporting criminal activity to the police, shield nursing home operators from accountability when senior citizens are abused by other patients, force individuals into binding arbitration, allow predatory lenders to skirt the law, and dramatically alter the way that jurors are screened. The report also highlights several legal trends that emerged during the 2005-2006 term.
“The Texas Supreme Court touches every facet of our lives,” said Winslow. “It is disturbing that this Court continues to bend and contort their decisions to favor wrongdoers over individual Texans.”
See Texas Watch
AUSTIN – Court Watch, a project of the Texas Watch Foundation, released its tenth annual list of the most anti-consumer decisions handed down by the Texas Supreme Court during the Court’s 2005-2006 term. Called the “Terrible 10,” this list reflects the Court’s pro-defendant bias against Texas families, homeowners, seniors, and small businesses.
This is Court Watch’s tenth annual review of the Texas Supreme Court. Over that time, Court Watch has highlighted the Court’s pro-defendant bias by conducting a statistical examination of the Court, as well as discussing legal trends. Over the ten year history of the Court Watch project, the Court has ruled in favor of defendants an average of 70% of the time.
“For ten years, Court Watch has been monitoring the Texas Supreme Court’s decision-making. We have highlighted various trends and spotlighted specific cases. One thing remains consistent: the Texas Supreme Court is ardently pro-defendant and Texas families are paying the price,” said Alex Winslow, Executive Director of the Texas Watch Foundation.
Lawmakers are considering legislation to consolidate power in the hands of the Texas Supreme Court. Winslow urged lawmakers to maintain judicial accountability and impartiality.
“Local judges in communities all across our state should not have to fear that the pro-defendant Texas Supreme Court is going to intervene in a local matter,” said Winslow. “Local voters elect the judges that they think reflect their values. We should maintain our current system of judicial accountability.”
Included on this year’s Terrible 10 list are cases that allow employers to fire workers for reporting criminal activity to the police, shield nursing home operators from accountability when senior citizens are abused by other patients, force individuals into binding arbitration, allow predatory lenders to skirt the law, and dramatically alter the way that jurors are screened. The report also highlights several legal trends that emerged during the 2005-2006 term.
“The Texas Supreme Court touches every facet of our lives,” said Winslow. “It is disturbing that this Court continues to bend and contort their decisions to favor wrongdoers over individual Texans.”
See Texas Watch
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Justice facing criminal and ethics probes in Austin - Hecht accused of accepting discount legal work from a high-profile firm
By CLAY ROBISON - Houston Chronicle - Aug. 9, 2007
AUSTIN — Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, under investigation by Travis County prosecutors after being accused of accepting an illegal contribution from a law firm, also is facing questions from the Texas Ethics Commission.
Hecht has declined to comment on the case, which involves a discount he received for personal legal services from the Jackson Walker law firm.
But he has retained attorney Wayne Meissner of Austin to represent him, and Jackson Walker has hired lawyer Roy Minton.
"Justice Hecht is responding to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's investigation, and we hope to resolve the matter as soon as possible," Meissner said Thursday.
The district attorney's office acknowledged last month that it was reviewing a complaint filed by Texas Watch, a government watchdog group, against Hecht.
The group also filed complaints with the Ethics Commission and the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, but neither agency, citing confidentiality laws, will discuss the case.
An attorney with the Ethics Commission, however, has directed Hecht to respond in writing and under oath to allegations that he failed to report the lowered fees as an in-kind political contribution and that the discount exceeded the $30,000 limit on judicial donations from a single law firm.
The Houston Chronicle got a copy of the Ethics Commission's letter from Texas Watch.
The controversy stems from Jackson Walker's successful defense of Hecht last year in a dispute with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The judicial commission admonished Hecht for promoting President Bush's short-lived nomination in 2005 of Harriet Miers, a longtime friend of Hecht's, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It said Hecht had violated a rule prohibiting Texas judges from publicly endorsing other candidates for office. Hecht appealed and, represented by Jackson Walker, won a dismissal of the admonition from a three-judge panel last October.
Hecht solicited contributions from lawyers to help pay his legal fees, and, according to reports filed with the Ethics Commission, paid Jackson Walker $342,416 from his political fund.
Chip Babcock, a Jackson Walker partner who handled the case, said Hecht's bill was reduced by 25 percent because the case involved a key public issue — freedom of speech.
Babcock said the discount was legal and denied the law firm was trying to curry favor with a Supreme Court justice.
Alex Winslow, Texas Watch's executive director, said it is illegal for state judges to accept gifts, except for campaign contributions, from parties the judges know are likely to appear before them. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by as much as one year in jail and a $4,000 fine, he said.
The Ethics Commission could assess a civil fine against Hecht if it determines he violated reporting requirements.
Read more
AUSTIN — Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, under investigation by Travis County prosecutors after being accused of accepting an illegal contribution from a law firm, also is facing questions from the Texas Ethics Commission.
Hecht has declined to comment on the case, which involves a discount he received for personal legal services from the Jackson Walker law firm.
But he has retained attorney Wayne Meissner of Austin to represent him, and Jackson Walker has hired lawyer Roy Minton.
"Justice Hecht is responding to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's investigation, and we hope to resolve the matter as soon as possible," Meissner said Thursday.
The district attorney's office acknowledged last month that it was reviewing a complaint filed by Texas Watch, a government watchdog group, against Hecht.
The group also filed complaints with the Ethics Commission and the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, but neither agency, citing confidentiality laws, will discuss the case.
An attorney with the Ethics Commission, however, has directed Hecht to respond in writing and under oath to allegations that he failed to report the lowered fees as an in-kind political contribution and that the discount exceeded the $30,000 limit on judicial donations from a single law firm.
The Houston Chronicle got a copy of the Ethics Commission's letter from Texas Watch.
The controversy stems from Jackson Walker's successful defense of Hecht last year in a dispute with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The judicial commission admonished Hecht for promoting President Bush's short-lived nomination in 2005 of Harriet Miers, a longtime friend of Hecht's, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It said Hecht had violated a rule prohibiting Texas judges from publicly endorsing other candidates for office. Hecht appealed and, represented by Jackson Walker, won a dismissal of the admonition from a three-judge panel last October.
Hecht solicited contributions from lawyers to help pay his legal fees, and, according to reports filed with the Ethics Commission, paid Jackson Walker $342,416 from his political fund.
Chip Babcock, a Jackson Walker partner who handled the case, said Hecht's bill was reduced by 25 percent because the case involved a key public issue — freedom of speech.
Babcock said the discount was legal and denied the law firm was trying to curry favor with a Supreme Court justice.
Alex Winslow, Texas Watch's executive director, said it is illegal for state judges to accept gifts, except for campaign contributions, from parties the judges know are likely to appear before them. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by as much as one year in jail and a $4,000 fine, he said.
The Ethics Commission could assess a civil fine against Hecht if it determines he violated reporting requirements.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
