I have concluded my first felony client's case. All in all, I'd say it was a win. I still have that client's misdemeanor issues to rap up, and hopefully all goes well with that.

In other business news, trying to design a...design for new business cards. Since I had the original batch printed I've setup a fax number and a new office address, so not only are they outdated, but in my opinion, they were a little too cartoony and not really what I expected.

Also, my first criminal trespass was dismissed.

It's been a busy week. I disposed of two cases this past Wednesday. One was reset to March at the request of the County Attorney. It will likely be dismissed, if it doesn't, I'll be taking that one to trial. The prosecution's only witness has flipped his story three times thus far, however, my investigator obtained audio and a signed affidavit saying it was not my client that criminally trespassed into his apartment. So...yay.

I wrapped up that appellate issue, meaning I turned my letter into Judge Sinz. My client should win on that then we can move to trial or get a settlement.

In other news, I picked up a felony client, charged with a class three felony and two probation revocation hearings. This client actually retained me, for a fairly low fee I have to admit, but I'm unconcerned about that. I think despite other attorney's charging higher fees it is ethical for me to charge according to my experience at this point, which is limited. I'll start raising my fee incrementally as I gain more court room experience.

I am hoping to move to Lufkin soon, in the next couple of weeks, another attorney is helping me find some housing. Then I can move into my office. I'll look forward to working along side Jim Squires and Eddie McFarland. If nothing else, I think it'll be fun.

That is about it, things are going well despite the Snowpocalypse.

Good day.

When I arrived at the courthouse I was approached by a woman who sought my counsel for legal advice. I had an hour to kill so we sat in an open room in the courthouse at which point she told me about a deceptive trade practices act claim she has against a local mechanic. This peeked my interest since that is an area of law I am familiar with. Making a rookie mistake, I told her I would represent her in the matter. I then discovered that this wasn't an original case before the court, but a de novo appellate hearing...in 30 minutes. My stomach sank. Now, it is really hard for me to begin to "freak out" but this was enough to cause it. I needed time, time I didn't have, to review the case, the issues, the facts, do legal research. The whole nine yards. This, by the way, was a DTPA claim with damages that amount to $27,000+, with, depending on the facts, a trebling of economic and mental anguish damages, possibly pushing the final judgment into the 6 digit range.

I quickly learned the procedural history of the case from the various papers my client gave me. My client had attempted to represent herself in the original hearing against another attorney. She however, was unaware of the importance of laying a foundation to introduce evidence. Thus, the lower court asked my client to refile her case, however, he also sent both parties a letter of final judgment. That "final judgment" unfortunately bars my client from refiling, and thus the other attorney filed a motion of res judicata (double jeopardy) to dismiss the second filing. The lower court judge overruled his motion, so the attorney appealed that decision to Judge Sinz's County Court at Law.

Thus here I am, having heard this person's plight. I knew if I withdrew she would have no chance and Judge Sinz would have no option but to overrule the lower judge's decision. So I stood my ground in the face of a proverbial oncoming procedural train. It was my belief that the final judgment entered was a mistake on the lower court's part, and the intent was not to enter a judgment, but to no suit the case (dismiss it without a finding on the merits). That is what I argued and requested that time be given both parties to submit a writing to Judge Sinz regarding the res judicata issue. My plan worked beautifully.

Had we had a trial on the merits then and there, we likely would have lost because I was not familiar with her case, facts, and had not been able to research legal principles to apply.

Had Judge Sinz ruled to overrule the lower court and grant the motion for res judicata, that would have been the end of my clients case.

Instead, I found a third option. Buy time for my client to get the lower court judge to weigh in and hopefully vacate what I can only assume is an incorrect letter stating the case was dismissed on it's merits.

Unfortunately for my client, even though she has what seems to be a solid case, she is in a procedural nightmare. On top of that, my first hearing with a court reporter in the court room turns out to be an appellate issue, for which I have 30 minutes to prepare, I manage to avoid a trial de novo for which I had no time to prepare, revisit the issue of res judicata to correct the erroneous procedural matter that could be used to appeal any decision from a de novo hearing had it been had, and buy time in hopes that the letter sent saying it was a final judgment is incorrect and we go back to square one.

There were other issues involved, but due to confidentiality I can not mention them here. However, I will say that with the given facts, I would love to try this case. I could have avoided this, but I felt truly sorry for this woman who, despite seeking justice be served, became a victim of her own folly and the sword that she committed sepiku with was the system itself. The rules of procedure are not intended to be a shield for ne'er-do-wells to hide behind, but rather to create a level playing field for anyone that would seek the justice our legal system affords.

I would be a poor excuse for an attorney if I didn't care and I would be nearly as bad if after having heard this woman's ordeal, to have stepped back and let her get destroyed in the courtroom. I could not, and would not allow that to happen. Even if she loses and her claim is forever barred, I hope that she remembers that someone did stand up for her rights as a litigant and what happened to her is not what our legal system and MY profession is about.

I found that a humorous coincidence and perhaps a good omen.

Many people I have met over the years seem to have forgotten that principle that our criminal justice system is based on. This rule and various protections aren't in place to let guilty people go free, they are there because it is BETTER that a guilty person go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted.

So while I represent specific clients, whenever I stand with them in court, I am standing there for that person, for you, and for the ideals our country was founded on.