Texas Supreme Court dismisses state bar's lawsuit against assistant A.G. Brent Webster

article

The Supreme Court of Texas in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, Aug. 23, 2024. Each of the five Texas business court divisions already has two judges appointed by Abbott, a prospect that all but guarantees the first jurists will reflect his business-frie

Expand

The Supreme Court of Texas on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit claiming Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster violated the state's rules of professional conduct for appearing on a lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election in four states.

What We Know: The Texas Supreme Court agreed with an earlier district court ruling that ruling on the case would violate the state constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine.

At the center of the lawsuit was a claim that Webster violated the Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, which prohibits lawyers from "engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

The claim came from someone outside the case filed by the attorney general's office. However, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline agreed that the six points in the rules had been violated and filed a lawsuit against Webster.

The Supreme Court held that the case doesn't involve "direct scrutiny" because the statements were not made directly to a court or within a case being heard by a court.

The court's opinion states that by hearing the case, the court "would improperly invade the executive branch's prerogatives and risk the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary."

The Backstory: After the 2020 presidential election, the Texas Attorney General's Office filed a complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court claiming four states violated the U.S. Constitution by altering their election laws.

The complaint was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of standing.

The grievance filed against Webster claimed he made "specious legal arguments and unsupported factual assertations."

That complaint was initially dismissed by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel because it didn't allege professional misconduct.

That decision was flipped by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals because it claimed a "possible violation" of the rules of professional conduct.

However, when the case reached the district court, it was again dismissed based on separation of powers.

The Eighth Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating separation of powers didn't apply because the complaint didn't argue Webster's decision to file the lawsuit and because Webster's constitutional discretion is limited by the rules of professional conduct.

Webster had argued the case wasn't arguable because of separation of powers or sovereign immunity.

The appeals court said because Webster was named individually, sovereign immunity did not apply and that any discipline against the assistant attorney general would not amount to an attempt to control state actions.

What They're Saying: Attorney General Ken Paxton called the commission's lawsuit an unlawful effort to discipline Webster.

"After four years of lawfare and political retaliation, the Texas Supreme Court has ended this witch hunt against the leadership of my office," Paxton said. "The Texas State Bar attempted to punish us for fighting to secure our national elections but we did not and will not ever back down from doing what is right. We have seen this playbook used against President Trump and other effective fighters for the American people and I am pleased that this attempt to stop our work has been defeated."

Webster called the lawsuit an attempt to "wage legal warfare."

"The actions of the State Bar were disgraceful, ridiculous, and a disservice to the people of Texas," said First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster. "Thankfully, with President Trump back in the White House and these attempts to wage legal warfare against us defeated, we can finally get back to making Texas and America great again without distraction."

What's Next: There is still a pending case involving similar claims against Paxton.