Issuu

austinbar.org OCTOBER 2025 | VOLUME 34, NUMBER 8

Judge Sam Sparks: “One You Should Watch to Learn How to be a Good Lawyer” BY MIKE THOMPSON JR.

hen he passed away in mid-September, Judge Sam Sparks was properly recognized by members of the Austin Bar for his long and distinguished service as a district judge of the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. One commented on the LinkedIn notice of his death, “He was a total jackass on the Bench but one helluva a judge.” Indeed, many of us who earned a lecture on this or that rule of federal procedure or evidence while trying a case in his courtroom probably felt the same way. But he had standing for his instruction of lawyers in his court because before he became a federal judge, he had been a top-notch trial lawyer himself for more than 25 years with the Hardie, Grambling, Sims and Galatzan law firm in El Paso. My first job out of law school was as a briefing attorney for Chief Justice Max Osborn on the El Paso Court of Appeals in 19891990. Before we observed arguments, Justice Osborn would note which attorneys to pay special attention to in order to learn how to do it well. “Sam Sparks,” he told us, was “one you should watch to

learn how to be a good lawyer.” And it wasn’t just Justice Osborn. In a judicial profile by one of Sparks’ clerks several years ago, retired Federal Judge Royal Furgeson recalled several cases they tried on the same side and against each other in El Paso when they officed “just down the street” from each other. Judge Furgeson noted that “…Sam was as formidable a trial lawyer as I ever saw in action.” Sparks tried hundreds of cases before he took the bench, including more than a few against Mike Thompson Sr., my dad. Dad echoed Judge Furgeson about Sparks’ trial skills. He related this story: As they both were getting ready for trial against each other (and undoubtedly other lawyers) the stress of preparation would compel them to the restroom to throw up and then back to work they would go to continue to prepare. I think that it is okay I share that story now since both are gone. That heavy trial schedule led to Judge Sparks being inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers and two stomach surgeries. He had also been president of the El Paso Bar Association. My

dad often commented that the federal bench would be better if the judges were elected every Monday morning. He did not feel that way about Judge Sparks. His reputation led to inquiries about judicial appointments during the Carter administration. Sparks answered the early outreach saying that he loved trying cases too much to leave it. That changed by the early 1990s as he lost his first wife, Arden Reed Sparks, after a tough battle with cancer and his children were all grown. When President George H. W. Bush called Sparks, he accepted the appointment, came home to Austin and was confirmed to the bench in 1991. He had the support of both GOP Senator Phil Gramm and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen. In the subsequent years, his rulings in cases like the Tom DeLay election case, the Hopwood v. Texas school admission case, the Hainze v. Richardson ADA case, and the United States v. Morales case undoubtedly upset either Gramm or Bentsen. That is proof he was probably doing it correctly. I was sworn into the Western District by Judge Sparks and tried my first federal case in his court room at the old Federal Courthouse across the street from the Brown Building. That building was referred to as a “ritzy loft development” in news reports of the time. Apparently, the lofts housed luxury dogs that were walked on the courthouse lawn, often leaving poop. That led to the infamous

Sparks-Yeakel “outlaw dog poo” order of 2004. The order read in part: “Any person who authorizes or permits any animal to relieve itself on the grass or grounds of the United States Courthouse shall be subject to citation, fine, and/or arrest effective from this date.” As far as I remember there were no challenges to the constitutionality of the order on the grounds it violated the first amendment. Given Sparks successful career as a trial lawyer, it should not have been a surprise he believed he should be hard on lawyers appearing in his court, even being a “jackass” maybe. He believed that lawyers who were in his court a second time should be better than the last time. And the judge was concerned that as a profession we were not trying enough cases and losing the craft of the trial lawyer. Sam Sparks continued on page 7.

I love LawPay! I’m not sure why I waited so long to get it set up. – Law Firm in Ohio

+ Member Benefit Provider

Trusted by 50,000 law firms, 8amTM LawPay is a simple, secure solution that allows you to easily accept credit and eCheck payments online, in person, or through your favorite practice management tools. 22% increase in cash flow with online payments Vetted and approved by all 50 state bars, 70+ local and specialty bars, the ABA, and the ALA 62% of bills sent online are paid in 24 hours

YOUR FIRM LOGO HERE

Trust Payment IOLTA Deposit New Case Reference ***

**** **** **** 9995

TOTAL: $1,500.00 POWERED BY

PAY ATTORNEY

Get started at

lawpay.com/austinbar 866-730-4140 Data based on an average of firm accounts receivables increases using online billing solutions. 8am, LLC is a registered ISO of Synovus Bank, Columbus, GA., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Cincinnati, OH, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Canadian Branch, Toronto, ON, Canada.

CONTENTS

AUSTINLAWYER OCTOBER 2025 | VOLUME 34, NUMBER 8 AL AL

INSIDE

1 Judge Sam Sparks: “One You Should Watch to Learn How to be a Good Lawyer” 22

Federal Permitting and the Judicial Acorn

IN EVERY ISSUE

New Members

CONNECTIONS

Briefs

ONLINE austinbar.org austinlawyeronline.com

14 Federal Civil Court Update August CANLaw Clinic Volunteers Drive Event Success 16 Third Court of Appeals Civil Update 25 Austin Bar Member Wins Pope Award from Texas 18 Third Court of Appeals Criminal Update Center for Legal Ethics 20 Local Jury Trial Verdicts 26 Texas Commission on Professional Ethics Opinion 708 24

29 The Bill of Rights, Explained for Kids (And Grown-Ups Too!) 30 Practical Tips for Parents: Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse

DEPARTMENTS

President’s Column

AYLA

EMAIL billy@austinbar.org MAIL Austin Bar Association 712 W. 16th Street Austin, TX 78701 Austin Bar app available for iPhone and Android. SOCIAL LIKE facebook.com/austinbar

ONLINE austinbar.org NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

SAVE THE DATE

2025 Pro Bono Fall Festival Sponsorships and tickets are now available for the 2025 Pro Bono Fall Festival! Last year, this great event, cohosted by the Austin Bar Association and the Austin Bar Foundation, raised more than $8,000 for Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas. Help us top that amount this year by purchasing tickets or a sponsorship! This family friendly event will take place Saturday, Oct. 25, at the South Austin Recreation Center. Register online at austinbar.org/fallfestival.

Nov. 5

Real Estate Section CLE Land-Development Seminar 8 a.m. - 4:15 p.m. The Fareground Conference Room 111 Congress Avenue

FOLLOW twitter.com/theaustinbar FOLLOW instagram.com/theaustinbar CONNECT https://www.linkedin.com/ company/austin-barassociation WATCH vimeo.com/austinbar

America’s Premier Civil-Trial Mediators & Arbitrators Online

View Bios & Available Dates Calendars for our TX Chapter Members, free at

www.TexasNeutrals.org Proud ADR Sponsor to the National Defense & Plaintiff Bar Associations OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

ADDICTION & MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES 24-Hour Suicide & Crisis Lifeline - 988 - call or text | Live chat: SuicidePreventionLifeline.org Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program (TLAP) - 1-800-343-8527 TLAP is a 24-hour confidential crisis counseling and referral program to help lawyers, law students, and judges with substance use and mental health issues. Justice Mack Kidd Fund The Austin Bar Foundation administers the Justice Mack Kidd Fund, which can provide financial assistance to individuals seeking treatment for depression or similar illnesses. Visit austinbar.org/?pg=justice-mack-kidd-fund to learn more. Personal Crisis Assistance Program (PCAP) The Austin Young Lawyers Association Foundation provides grants and/or peer support for individuals suffering from a personal crisis. Contact Debbie Kelly: 512-472-0279 x 105 Sheeran-Crowley Trust Administered through TLAP, the trust provides financial help to Texas attorneys, judges, and law students who need treatment for substance use, depression, and other mental health issues. Visit sheerancrowley.org to learn more. Alcohol & Drug Abuse Austin Drug & Alcohol Abuse Program - 512-454-8180 Alcoholics Anonymous - 512-444-0071 Cocaine Anonymous - 512-479-9327 Narcotics Anonymous Counseling - 512-480-0004 Psychiatric Emergencies Emergency Screening in a Psychiatric Crisis 24/7 - 512-472-4357 Samaritan Center (provides professional counseling services on a sliding scale) - 512-451-7337

AUSTINLAWYER OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ALOF THE ALASSOCIATION AUSTIN BAR AUSTIN BAR ASSOCIATION

Maitreya Tomlinson �� President Judge Maya Guerra Gamble �� President-Elect Sarah Harp �� Secretary Ciara Parks �� Treasurer Mary-Ellen King �� Immediate Past President

AUSTIN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Jenna Malsbary �� President Gracie Wood Shepherd �� President-Elect Lena Proft �� Treasurer Ben Evans �� Secretary Emily Morris �� Immediate Past President

Austin Lawyer

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

712 W. 16th Street Austin, TX 78701 Email: austinbar@austinbar.org Website: austinbar.org Ph: 512.472.0279 DeLaine Ward....................... Executive Director Debbie Kelly.......................... Associate Executive Director Roslyn Warner....................... Assistant Editor Samantha McCoy................. Assistant Editor Abigail Ventress.................... Assistant Editor Billy Huntsman...................... Managing Editor Austin Lawyer (ISSN #10710353) is published monthly, except for July/August and December/January, at the annual rate of $10 membership dues by the Austin Bar Association and the Austin Young Lawyers Association, 712 W. 16th Street, Austin, TX 78701. Periodicals Postage Paid at Austin, Texas. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Austin Lawyer, 712 W. 16th Street, Austin, TX 78701. Austin Lawyer is an award-winning newsletter published 10 times a year for members of the Austin Bar Association. Its focus is on Austin Bar activities, policies, and decisions of the Austin Bar board of directors; legislation affecting Austin attorneys; and other issues impacting lawyers and the legal professionals. It also includes information on decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and the Texas Third Court of Appeals; CLE opportunities; members’ and committees’ accomplishments; and various community and association activities. The views, opinions, and content expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) or advertiser(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Austin Bar Association membership, Austin Bar Association board of directors, or Austin Bar Association staff. As a matter of policy, the Austin Bar Association does not endorse any products, services, or programs, and any advertisement in this publication should not be construed as such an endorsement. Contributions to Austin Lawyer are welcome, but the right is reserved to select and edit materials to be published. Please send all correspondence to the address listed above. For editorial guidelines, visit austinbar.org in the “About Us” tab.

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

PRESIDENT’S COLUMN

Using Our Austin Bar Committees Effectively for a Productive Bar Year MAITREYA TOMLINSON, AUSTIN BAR PRESIDENT

e know that committees are important to organizations. Like other organizations, bar associations see the value in committees and tend to create many of them. But why are they important? And does their creation automatically enhance a bar association? In the spirit of moving into the future, I consulted our future overlord, artificial intelligence, to uncover why it thought committees were important. The hopefully benevolent future ruler generated the following reason: “they help organize, divide, and manage complex work within larger groups….” With AI’s permission, I will add some of my own reasons. The Austin Bar Association’s committees allow us to implement our initiatives, improve our organization, fulfill our mission statement, and provide value to our members. Further, the committees allow for greater member engagement, and they are many members’ first experience in bar service. Years ago, I began my own service by joining the Bench Bar Committee. Committees also provide attorneys with an opportunity to learn more about organizing, leading, and collaborating. Lastly, committees supply the opportunity for us to help foster the Austin Bar Association’s next leaders. While the value of committees is evident, the answer to the second question is a little more nuanced. Committees can add value, but not necessarily by virtue of their existence. Committees typ6

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

ically add value when they function well. Committees that are unorganized and do not set goals will generally accomplish little for their parent organization. At the same time, committees that rely solely on their leadership (however dedicated and hardworking) will accomplish less. In my experience, the hallmarks of well-functioning committees are relatively easy to identify. Well-functioning committees are organized. They tend to have motivated committee chairs who set goals, schedule regular meetings, and delegate responsibilities. When a committee is successful, the committee members know their roles and responsibilities early on. They also recognize the importance of their work and take ownership of it. So, how do we ensure that our committees function well? It begins at the top. As bar presidents, we should do our due diligence by evaluating potential committee chairs and appointing them to committees that will provide them with the best chance to succeed. As committee chairs, we should consider how often our committees should meet and establish an agreed-to meeting schedule early on. It’s also important that we set goals, consider what needs to be done to reach those goals, create subcommittees with their own leaders, and otherwise delegate tasks necessary to achieving the committee’s goals. If possible, we should do many of these things either before or at the committee’s first meeting. Because successful committees depend on their members, we—as committee chairs— should not always solely rely on volunteers. We should try to recruit individuals to join the committees who we believe will shoulder responsibility and contribute meaningfully. We should also check in as much

We have a lot to accomplish this bar year, but I have complete confidence in the value that the committees will add to our organization. Let’s use our committees effectively to ensure a productive and unforgettable bar year! as necessary to ensure that our delegated tasks are being accomplished. Additionally, we should help foster our committee members’ growth by personally engaging them and by acknowledging their achievements. These efforts can be very impactful. An Austin attorney and longtime leader recently shared her story about a leader who reached out to her years ago. The interaction was uniquely memorable and had a lasting positive effect on her. This stuff matters. When we serve as committee members, we should welcome the opportunity to shoulder more re-

sponsibility and to demonstrate our skills. There are many tangible benefits to displaying our competence to others in the legal community (especially to those that we might not typically interact with in our regular practice). As the Austin Bar’s President, I feel fortunate that we have many dedicated attorneys to lead and to participate in the Bar Association’s committees. We have a lot to accomplish this bar year, but I have complete confidence in the value that the committees will add to our organization. Let’s use our committees effectively to ensure a productive and unforgettable bar year! AL

Sam Sparks continued from page 1.

His concern about the courts and how trials were conducted in his court was not just about lawyers either. There is an expert witness who the judge was very hard on with evidentiary rulings and questions during his testimony. The witness felt he had been so disrespected by the court that he let it be known he would never again appear in Judge Sparks’ courtroom. The judge reached out to the expert explaining to him he felt obligated to be firm with experts in trial as juries pursued the truth. He also went on to tell the expert how much he respected him, how much he had learned from him about his expert field and hoped the court would hear from him again. I tried my first federal trial in his court. He called a mentor of mine to tell him how I had done. The next time Judge Sparks was in El Paso after my trial in his court he took the time and made a special trip to the El Paso County Courthouse to see my dad so he could tell him I had tried a case in his court and I had done “well,” except I needed to learn to urge the “asked and answered” objection. A teacher always. That trip meant a lot to my dad and me. I bet I am not the only attorney he did that for. RIP Judge. AL Mike Thompson Jr. is an Associate General Counsel at the Texas Association of Counties. He is also a member of Sam’s Club. Any opinions expressed are his own and not those of either organization mentioned above.

Chris Andre

New Vehicle Leasing / Pre-Owned Sales Domestics / Imports / Exotics

Busy Schedule? Call me. Any Make. Any Model. Email | chris@appleleasing.com

Phone | 512.653.3718

OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

BRIEFS New Members The Austin Bar welcomes the following new members: Aniz Alani

Michael Lu

James Anderson

Dan Luiton

Emma Apodaca

Taylor Luke

Heather Arispe

Roshni Mahendru

Brian Banner

Luis Carlos Maldonado Paz

Frank Barat Victoria Barreras Milissa Barrick Sameer Bhuchar Tracy Bidot Ratannya Bralley Jake Burke Amanda Byrd Joseph Callaghan Alexis Cantu Rodrigo Cantu Sinty Chandy Sarah Chia James Collura Lisa Cunningham Elbert Davis Valerie Davis James Day Angelica Del Valle Hang Dinh Sherri Eastley Samuel Easton Jessica Escobar Steven Espenshade Ananthram Ganesh

Amy Martinez Sherry Maximoss Stacey McLarty Ana McPherson Willa Meissner Lyda Molanphy Jack Murphy Thomas Parnham Taylor Pearson Griselda Ponce Anthony Rabago Sherry Rasmus Michael Richards Rachel Rogers Nicholas Rudd Rodney Ruiz Amber Russell Melissa Russo Jesús Salinas Robert Savage Devin Schwartz Mara Sherry

Karley Garcia Gideon Gaw

Rachel Thebeau

Adam Goodrum

John Tower

Richard Greenblum

Kimberly Tran

Haley Greer

Brian Tung

Jami Hale

Nikhita Ved

Christopher Hanba

Veronica Veronica

Iris Hernandez

Monica Wadleigh

Diego Hinojosa

Abigail Walker

Daniel Iskhakov

Jeffrey Walker

Liane Janovsky

Emma Wensing

Jesse Jessup

Megan Whiteford

Vikram Joshi

Alexis Williams

Julia Kang

Fred Williams

Merjan Kareem

Mary Winston

Mariel Kelley

Keith Wolfshohl

Patrick Kemp

Olivia Womack

David Key

William Woodson

Anna Kuhn Tim Labadie Erika Laremont Ceara Laughlin Adam Leitch Manuel Lopez

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

TOP (from left): Black, E. Cavazos, S. Cavazos, Duckworth. BOTTOM (from left): Nash, Tsai.

Katherine Molina

Deborah Sonnenschein

Antonela Knapic

Quinn Martindale

KUDOS Congratulations to the following for being named finalists in the Texas Lawyer’s 2025 Texas Legal Awards. Austin Bar member Emily Westridge Black, partner at A&O Shearman, was named an Influential Woman of the Year finalist. Emily’s practice involves serving as an adviser to boards and executives to help them navigate product liability, fraud, anticorruption, securities, environmental-social governance, mass tort, and cybersecurity. Austin Bar member Ed Cavazos, managing partner in Pillsbury Winthrop’s Austin office, was named a Managing Partner of the Year finalist. Ed’s practice includes advising clients on disruptive technologies, internet, software, open-source, blockchain, energy tech, digital media, and entertainment. Austin Bar and AYLA member Sergio Cavazos, associate at Greenberg Traurig, was named a Most Promising Newcomer finalist. Practicing in the firm’s Government & Law Policy group, Sergio advocates for his clients’ interests utilizing his prior experience as chief of staff for Texas Rep. Eddie Lucio III. He also previously served as director of the Texas House Committee on Insurance, where he assisted in the development and passage of a bill to prevent surprise medical billing in Texas.

Austin attorney Mollie Duckworth, partner in Latham & Watkins’ Austin office, was named an Influential Woman of the Year finalist. Mollie’s practice involves handling corporate and securities matters, with a particular focus on representing public companies throughout their life cycle. She advises public and private companies on mergers and acquisitions, and represents issuers and investment banks in public offerings and private placements of equity and debt securities. Austin attorney Brian C. Nash, partner at Morrison Foerster, was named an Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year finalist. Brian has litigated more than 200 cases in Texas, with his practice extending nationwide, encompassing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has represented multiple Fortune 50 clients in matters involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright. Austin Bar member Lisa Tsai, partner at Reid Collins & Tsai, was named an Influential Woman of the Year finalist. Lisa’s practice involves representing plaintiffs in complex business disputes, financial fraud, professional liability, legal malpractice, fiduciary duty, intellectual property, and other corporate malfeasance and business tort disputes. She has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for her clients.

Texas firms can eFile in 30 seconds. Wow. Your documents are the source of truth. Keep them in view with a split-screen filing workflow.

Data auto-populate from your legal documents. +95% of fields complete with 99% accuracy.

Certified eFiling provider for

Early results show users cut their rejection rate in half and completed eFilings 5X faster.

courts

eFiling and serving made effortless www.infotrack.com/wow-texas

AUSTIN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

My Challenge to You: Give Yourself Grace JENNA MALSBARY, AYLA PRESIDENT

graduated from St. Mary’s University School of Law and was sworn in to the Texas Bar in 2012. However, there are days when I still feel like I’m a baby lawyer. Especially days when I make mistakes or instantly regret saying, or not saying, something. Many attorneys are perfectionists. I am in most areas of my life. It is within an attorney’s nature to want to be right in our advocacy. Up until recently and still occasionally, I find myself going over mistakes, over and over again. Wishing I’d said something different or said anything at all. I am my own biggest critic. Growing up as an athlete, it was easier to avoid mistakes with practice and repetition. There are aspects of practicing law where we are able to do just that. Trial prep, practice, studying. But what about unpredictable areas? What about when a mistake happens even with the

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

practice and preparation? Maybe not even a mistake, but an unfavorable outcome of a case or something completely out of your hands that feels like a mistake. Of course, this doesn’t just apply to us in the legal realms of our lives. I tend to be hard on myself about every single thing that goes wrong whether it is in my control or not. I am particularly being challenged this year as president of AYLA, a mom of two toddlers, and learning new practice areas. For example, I take entirely way too much time (and energy) going back through each awkward or imperfect moment following AYLA events because I’ve set the expectation for me to be perfect. With any mistake I make, whether work-related or mom-related, I am so hard on myself and start to spiral and question my ability to meet the high standards I’ve created for myself or to be successful at all. However, I’ve gotten better about beating myself up and learned that all of this self-imposed pressure and concern mostly means that I care, a lot. In recent years, when I get into these intense negative feelings, I’ve repeatedly gone back to this sound advice that was given to me once I became a mom that I wish I’d had my entire life and especially at the beginning of

my legal career as a “baby” lawyer. Seriously, this would have been great to practice through adolescence going into adulthood. The advice is to give yourself grace. That’s it. Treat yourself with kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. This advice has come from not just one person, but multiple as I’ve navigated new chapters these past few years. It’s how I am able to get out of that rut of being so hard on myself that it ruins an event or core memory for me. It helps me have the courage to ask questions when I am needing guidance and overcome the overwhelming feelings of disappointment when things don’t go as planned. Through the years of growing pains and surviving an array of unexpected life events on all levels of trauma and grief, I’ve navigated relationships, friendships, and connections of all types, and encountered many varieties of personalities For so many years, I have given grace to those around me, supporting them, understanding imperfections, and even embracing them, but I could not do the same for myself. Once I started practicing giving myself grace, it was like a new path was created for me to find joy and divert from negative thoughts and

feelings. I know that I’m not perfect, so why do I create unrealistic expectations that take away from the good and positive things that my time and energy could be focused on? Learning to give myself grace is an everyday intention and practice. It has taken a complete re-wiring of years of habits of putting myself down when I don’t perform to my own expectations. There are times when I forget this advice momentarily, but it has definitely helped pull me out of situations and negative thoughts or feelings. My challenge to you as fellow attorneys and colleagues, no matter what chapter you’re in, or what you’re going through, is to give yourself grace when the fears and doubts creep in on your confidence. As attorneys, we are continuously growing, learning, and developing skills. While some individuals constantly seem perfect, the reality is that we are going to make mistakes, go through growing pains, and regret decisions or actions. When that happens, it is important to keep in mind that you can make it to the other side if you give yourself grace, accept the imperfections, learn and grow going forward, and remember that you are incredibly resilient and strong. AL

Complexity is our specialty. Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Aviation Law, attorneys Mike Slack and Ladd Sanger, along with senior attorney Derek Quick, of the law firm Slack Davis Sanger, specialize in navigating and winning challenging aviation cases. With three decades of experience and a team of highly-regarded lawyers consisting of licensed pilots and a former NASA® engineer, we have the technical and legal expertise to outwork, out-think, and out-resource any opposition. Austin | Dallas | SLACKDAVIS.COM Commercial Airline | Private & Charter Planes | Helicopter | Air Ambulance

AUSTIN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

One Young Lawyer’s Guide to Seeking Balance ROSLYN WARNER, LLOYD GOSSELINK ROCHELLE & TOWNSEND, P.C.

or many of our clients, firms, or agencies, fall is the start of a new fiscal year. Several of us are probably instrumental in the labor required to prepare a new budget. Well, my offering to this month’s Austin Lawyer readers is to reflect on a different kind of budget–the budget for your personal energy. One of the foremost conundrums in any profession is the idea of “finding balance”. How does one give adequate time and attention to the work while also attaining personal fulfillment, peace, well-being, etc.? I am obviously biased, but I would wager that finding balance is particularly challenging for attorneys. However, just like the practice of law, finding balance is a process. At the end of the day, we are all humans with lives composed of moving targets and changing variables. If we occasionally set our ambitious tendencies aside, it leaves us room to recognize that instead of finding balance, perhaps seeking balance through small daily efforts is where the true value lies. And so, with that backdrop, here are a few tools I have found especially helpful in my own journey of seeking balance as a young lawyer. Compartmentalize: The legal profession demands that we keep several, often delicate, plates in the air at any given time. While I’m sure many of us take pride in a multi-tasking skillset, compartmentalizing can help us maximize our mental energy and ultimately be more effective. I find it helpful to specifically allocate time and energy whenever possible: When you’re drafting a client email, focus only on that email instead of the other meeting you have in 20 minutes. Look at your day in advance—When can you make time to prepare for your hearing without distraction? Can you engage with your inbox 12

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

during a set window instead of interrupting your flow? Compartmentalizing goes handin-hand with practicing presence and establishing boundaries. I promise they’re more than just buzz words; they’re key ingredients for seeking balance! To be present, be where your feet are. If you’re at work, be at work. If you’re recharging, allow yourself to fully recharge. To establish boundaries, think about how you would counsel any client during settlement talks–what are your non-negotiables? Once those are established, are there other areas of work or life where you can be flexible? Breath and Movement: Physical and mental well-being can be deeply intertwined. When I teach yoga, I like to emphasize that your movements don’t have to be intense to be beneficial. Subtle movements or a two-minute check-in with your breath can make an immense difference. Find a moment between briefs for a few rounds of 4-7-8 breathing or take periodic breaks to stretch the neck, roll the shoulders and wrists, and take a quick forward fold. Regularly identify areas where you are holding tension– are you clenching your jaw when you email opposing counsel? Holding your breath as you review those redlines? Give yourself the gift of release! Grace and Self-Compassion: Perfectionism has its time and place, but it can be more of a barrier to balance than a tool. Check out AYLA President Jenna Malsbary’s article on page 10 in this month’s edition of the Austin Lawyer on the importance of giving yourself grace. It can be hugely helpful to regularly audit our self-talk. If we practice compassion towards ourselves, we are better able to extend the same to our clients and colleagues. Step Away from the Screens: We are more accessible than ever, and we are surrounded by con-

stant stimulation. If you find that stimulation becomes overstimulation more often than you’d like, try to create pockets within your week to take a reprieve. For me, this is usually a break from screens and notifications. Intentional Joy: This is my favorite. I once read about the power of smiling at yourself in the mirror. It seems silly but it’s amazing how much silly can help us maintain perspective. If you wake up thinking about a song that makes you feel good, turn it on and sing along while you drive to work. If you’ve had a jam-packed day and you can feel your stress level rising, take a moment to think about a memory that brings you laughter. I offer these tidbits with the cave-

at that each of us navigates unique circumstances every day. My tools will not be the same as your tools. But communities like AYLA are extremely valuable for comparing notes on tools and tricks. If you’ve made it this far, my hope is that you’ll conduct your own fall audit and be thoughtful about how you might budget for balance. Doing so regularly can empower us to be better lawyers. AL Roslyn Warner is an Associate at Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., who specializes in utility regulation. She is a member of the AYLA Board of Directors and co-chair of the Health & Wellness Committee. Prior to attending law school, Roslyn became a certified yoga instructor and finds that many pieces of yoga practice are equally helpful in the practice of law.

UPCOMING EVENTS WED, OCT. 15 Leadership Academy Recruitment/Alumni Event 5:30 - 7 p.m. Hilgers House, 712 W. 16th St. RSVP at AYLA.org

THUR, OCT. 16 AYLA Docket Call 5:30 - 7 p.m. Brass Poppy - Hotel Van Zandt 605 Davis St. Sponsored by The Lewis Group RSVP at AYLA.org

AUSTIN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Member Spotlight: Melissa Pina

Spotlight.

e recently sat down with AYLA member Melissa Pina to feature in our Member

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your law practice. I litigated for six years both in private practice and with a non-profit prior to finding my calling in trust and estate administration. Although I am not technically practicing anymore, I use my J.D. to serve families as a corporate fiduciary with Cadence Bank. Some of our responsibilities include settling estates and trusts when we are named as a fiduciary. In those situations, we gather assets, file tax returns, dispose of property, and distribute assets in accordance with the terms of the governing instrument (among other things). A large portion of my work also includes the admin-

istration of trusts for individuals with special needs. In those cases, strict adherence to state and federal laws and regulations must be given in order to ensure that the beneficiary’s government benefits are not impacted by the existence of the trust or the actions we take in administering it. This work often involves research, home visits, communication with and educating families, connecting families to resources such as case managers and organizations to maximize public benefits, overseeing tax preparation, real estate purchases, and monitoring accounts to ensure we are effectively managing assets through investing and budgeting. When I am not administering trusts or settling estates, you can find me spending time with my husband and two little ones, visiting Austin trails and restaurants, or volunteering with Marbridge Foundation.

How long have you been involved in AYLA and what has been your best AYLA experience so far? I joined AYLA at the end of 2021 after I moved to Austin from Houston and started working for Cadence Bank. I have most enjoyed connecting and building friendships with folks through the different AYLA events like swimming at Barton Springs, having my son participate with me at the PlayStreet Sunset Valley, or attending the monthly Docket Calls. What was your childhood dream job? I dreamt of becoming a zoologist who specifically studied the Lagomorpha animal family (rabbits, hares, and pikas). I felt like I made my 10-year-old self proud a couple of years ago when I climbed on the side of a mountain in the Rocky Mountain National Park to see pikas in person for the first time.

What are some of things you enjoy most about living in Austin? Austin is so beautiful! I have enjoyed exploring hiking trails. I also love spending more time with local friends and family. What’s your best piece of advice for young attorneys? Be yourself and talk yourself up. Everyone has their own special strengths or “superpowers” that benefit the world, and you may find a career path you love by exploring that more. Life is too short to be miserable. AL

MEDIATION & ADR SERVICES

MARK L. HAWKINS THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION 2012–PRESENT

TEXAS SUPER LAWYERS®

BUSINESS LITIGATION 2016–PRESENT

THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®

REAL ESTATE LAW 2012–PRESENT

AUSTIN MONTHLY

Creative, efficient resolution of business disputes. How can we help?

TOP ATTORNEY 2019–PRESENT

Judge Jeff Rose (Ret.)

Armbrust & Brown, PLLC 100 CONGRESS AVE., SUITE 1300 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 512-435-2300 • FAX 512-435-2360 MHAWKINS@ABAUSTIN.COM

ROSE RESOLUTION GROUP

Former Chief Justice, Texas’ Third Court of Appeals • 5 Time Texas Super Lawyer • Board Certified, Civil Trial Law

www. RoseResolutionGroup.com OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

FEDERAL CIVIL COURT UPDATE

Ari Cuenin is a partner at Stone Hilton, where he litigates complex government disputes. He has presented more than 30 arguments in state and federal courts, and has been involved in more than a dozen U.S. Supreme Court cases for the State of Texas.

The following are summaries of selected criminal opinions issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The summaries are overviews; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent histories are current as of September 8, 2025. Below are recent decisions from the United States Fifth Circuit of Appeals.

veyed a message likely to be understood by the audience. It held that the university’s performance venue was a designated public forum based on its open use by various campus and community groups. Consequently, the ban was judged as a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny, which West Texas A&M had not argued could be satisfied. The panel also found irreparable First Amendment injury and that granting an injunction served the public interest. It affirmed injunctive relief against Wendler and an official who aided in the ban but dismissed the claim against the chancellor of the university for lack of standing. Judge Ho dissented. This decision reflects that a drag show can be expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection even without a narrowly articulable message, provided that intent and context demonstrate a communicative purpose. It also reinforces First Amendment protections for oncampus expressive activities in designated public fora. Within higher-education settings, this new decision reflects key limitations on administrative discretion to suppress expression based on content or viewpoint.

ON-CAMPUS FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSION: Denial of preliminary injunction reversed.

CONTRACT DISPUTE: Fifth Circuit reverses denial of fee shifting following contract termination.

Spectrum WT v. Wendler, No. 2310994: An LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University planned a charity drag show fundraiser. Despite prior instances of allowing similar events on campus, university president Wendler canceled the show, deeming drag to be demeaning to women. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the drag show constituted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The panel majority, led by Judge Southwick and joined by Judge Dennis, concluded that the performance (a theatrical on-stage event symbolic of LGBT+ support) sufficiently con-

Penthol, L.L.C. v. Vertex Energy Operating, L.L.C., No. 2420329: The Fifth Circuit affirmed that plaintiff Penthol did not commit anticipatory repudiation of a sales agreement. A conditional termination threat subject to a 30-business-day cure period did not amount to an unconditional refusal to perform, which was a prerequisite under Texas law for anticipatory breach. Defendant Vertex prematurely declared termination, effectively executing a “preemptive strike.” The district court’s finding that the ultimate termination was mutual—initiated by Vertex and confirmed by Penthol—was upheld on appeal. Regarding fees and costs, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under the contract’s feeshifting clause. The panel held that a “mutual termination” does not preclude one party from being a “defaulting party” under the agreement. Thus, Vertex could still recover reasonable expenses, including legal fees, associated with enforcing its contractual rights. The case was remanded to determine entitlement to such costs. The panel, however, affirmed the district court’s discretionary denial of prevailing-party costs under Rule 54(d), finding no abuse of discretion given the complexity of the issues, goodfaith conduct by both parties, and a well-explained decision below. This decision highlights that parties in contract disputes should carefully analyze termination dynamics. They should not assume that mutual termination automatically erases fee-shifting rights. Contractual feeshifting provisions may still apply even in the context of a mutual dissolution of contract obligations. On the other hand, awards of discretionary costs under Rule 54(d) can still be challenging to obtain in this context and may remain unavailable absent compelling reasons. TAKINGS: Mere potential for speculative sale insufficient to show residual economically viable use. DM Arbor Court, Ltd. v. City of Houston, No. 2320385: After Hurricane Harvey flooded the Arbor Court apartments in 2017, the City of Houston invoked a seldom-used flood-control ordinance to deny repair permits unless buildings were elevated. The Fifth Circuit held that the denial extinguished all economically viable use of the property, constituting a categorical taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Both parties’ experts agreed that elevating the complex would cost $40-46 million, rendering any redevelopment economically infeasible. The district court had concluded that the ability to hold the property for investment or sell it retained “use,” but the Fifth Cir-

cuit rejected that view. The mere potential that property may be held indefinitely as an investment or attract a speculative sale does not provide the “economically viable use” required under Lucas to avoid a categorical taking. The panel emphasized that where a regulation imposes permanent deprivation of all productive use, a categorical taking occurs even if a market sale remains possible. Importantly, the Court declined to consider in the first instance the City’s late-raised argument that the ordinance fell within Lucas’s exception for “background principles” of takings, like nuisance prevention. This opinion reinforces that municipalities will likely face strict constitutional limits when imposing post-disaster land-use regulations. Even safety-driven permitting restrictions may require just compensation if they leave no feasible economic use. Local governments should assess takings risks carefully when implementing new restrictions, particularly where increased compliance costs may make redevelopment effectively impossible. AL

Do I Know A DoProperty I Know ATax Property Tax Lawyer? Lawyer?

COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX REPRESENTATION COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX REPRESENTATION Trusted by Lawyers, Tax Consultants and Taxpayers Since 1981 Trusted by Lawyers, Tax Consultants and Taxpayers Since 1981

WWW.TEXASPROPERTYTAXATTORNEYS.COM WWW.TEXASPROPERTYTAXATTORNEYS.COM

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS CIVIL UPDATE

Laurie Ratliff is a former staff attorney for the Third Court of Appeals. She is boardcertified in civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and owner of Laurie Ratliff LLC.

The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during August 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of September 18, 2025.

> FAMILY LAW: Court reverses spousal-maintenance calculation. Harwood v. Harwood, No. 0323-00455-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2025, no pet. h.). The trial court found husband was intentionally underemployed, calculated spousal maintenance using an annual income of $120,000, as opposed to his actual gross income,

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month to wife. According to the court of appeals, Family Code Section 8.055 caps spousal maintenance at the lesser of $5,000 or 20 percent of the spouse’s average monthly gross income. Husband’s monthly earnings were $3,300. Thus, $660 was the maximum statutory amount. Section 8.055 contains no provision authorizing spousal maintenance based on earning potential rather than actual income due to intentional underemployment. The Court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded the spousal-maintenance amount. TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court reverses dismissal where county court at law concluded damages were above the jurisdictional limits. Giddy Holdings, Inc. v. Alpha Five Construction, LLC, No. 03230—659-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2025, no pet. h.). In this construction dispute, Giddy Holdings sued Alpha Five in the county court at law, requesting monetary relief over $100,000 but less $1 million without pleading a specific amount. Giddy Holdings amended to clarify it sought damages of less than $250,000, within the jurisdictional limit. Alpha Five counterclaimed seeking damages over the jurisdictional limit. The trial court concluded that the amended petition did not control and granted Alpha Five’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed. The court of appeals concluded that Giddy Holdings’ request for

restitution without specifying the amount was not fatal to jurisdiction. The Court held that because Giddy Holdings did not affirmatively demonstrate jurisdiction, it should have been permitted to amend. Thus, the trial court should have considered Giddy Holdings’ amended petition that cured the defects. The Court reversed and remanded. TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court affirms appellate fee award. Jimmie Luecke Children P’Ship, Ltd. v. Droemer, No. 0323-00761-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Partnership sought to enforce a series of emails as a Rule 11 agreement regarding payment of $15,000 in appellate fees. The court of appeals observed that courts can enforce Rule 11 agreements even if repudiated by one party but only under contract law with proper pleading and proof. Proper pleading and proof requires a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, which Partnership did not file. At the hearing on appellate fees, Partnership asked the Court to rely on the emails as an enforceable agreement. The trial court never held a hearing on the enforceability of the purported Rule 11 agreement. The evidence established that Droemers revoked consent to the $15,000 appellate-fees settlement. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce the emails and in awarding over $31k in fees. The Court affirmed.

HEALTH-CARE LIABILITY: Court affirms dismissal where pleadings alleged a health-care liability claim but plaintiff failed to provide expert report. Holcomb v. Seton Med. Ctr., No. 03-24-00010-CV (Tex. App.— Austin Aug. 27, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). After receiving outpatient care at Seton, employees dropped Holcomb when transporting her to her car causing injuries. Holcomb sued for negligence. The trial court granted Seton’s motion to dismiss when she failed to provide an expert report. According to the court of appeals, whether a claim is a health-care liability claim turns on the facts underlying the injury, not the pleading’s description of the facts. The operative facts concerned departures from patient-safety standards. The court concluded there was a substantive nexus between the safety standards and the provision of health care for the claim to constitute a health-care liability claim, for which Holcomb was required to provide an expert report. The court affirmed. AL

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS CRIMINAL UPDATE

Zak Hall is a staff attorney for the Third Court of Appeals. The summaries that follow represent the views of the author alone and do not reflect the views of the Court or any of the individual justices on the Court.

The following is a summary of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals from March 2025. The summary is an overview; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent history is current as of September 5, 2025.

> JURY INSTRUCTIONS – NECESSITY: Trial court did not err during murder trial by failing to include in the jury charge an instruction on the defense of necessity in addition to an included instruction on self-defense. Rollins v. State, 709 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App.—Austin 2025, pet. ref’d). Rollins was charged with

capital murder for shooting and killing victims Rogers and Satterwhite. During the charge conference, Rollins requested an instruction on self-defense, which the trial court granted, and the defense of necessity, which the trial court denied. Rogers argued that the defense of necessity was raised by his testimony showing that he had been robbed and threatened with a gun before he shot the victims, both of whom Rollins described as dangerous people known to carry weapons. Rollins also testified that Rogers threatened him on the phone before he shot her and that Satterwhite mentioned threats against Rollins and was fumbling with something in his hands before Rollins shot him. The defense of necessity applies when: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear. The third requirement was at issue here. There was a split among the courts of appeals regarding whether a necessity instruction may be given in a murder case in which the defendant is given an instruction on self-defense using deadly force. Many of the courts had held that in murder cases in which the defendant claims self-defense, the

self-defense statute “evidences a legislative intent that precludes an accompanying necessity instruction.” The Austin court agreed with these courts. The Court explained that “the Legislature intended to impose a higher standard for justification of deadly force, permitting its use only when the actor’s life is immediately threatened by another’s use of unlawful deadly force,” while a necessity defense involved “a substantially lower showing,” requiring only that the conduct be necessary to “avoid imminent harm.” Thus, allowing an instruction on both defenses “would undermine the legislative purpose of limiting the justifiable use of deadly force to preventing an immediate threat to one’s life.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the request for a necessity instruction. JURY INSTRUCTIONS – TERRORISTIC THREAT: Harassment is not a lesser-included offense of terroristic threat, which is a nature-of-the-conduct offense. Johnson v. State, 710 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Austin 2025, no pet.). Johnson was convicted of making a terroristic threat to a judge. On appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court erred by (1) failing to include a lesser-included-offense instruction for the offense of harassment and (2) failing to include in the definition for “intentionally” an instruction pertaining to the result of his alleged conduct. Regarding the lesser-included of-

fense, the Court compared the elements of each offense. A person commits the offense of terroristic threat “if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to . . . influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.” The offense of harassment included an additional element, the “intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another,” that was not included in the offense of terroristic threat. The harassment statute also required that the subject of the threat be the person receiving the threat, a member of that person’s family, or the person’s property. Because of these additional elements, harassment was not a lesser-included offense of terroristic threat. Regarding the definition of the culpable mental state in the jury charge, the Court explained that a jury charge on a culpable mental state should be tailored to the gravamen of the offense, which is either the “nature of the conduct” or the “result of the conduct” for intentional mental states. The Court concluded that “the gravamen for the terroristic-threat statute is the nature of the conduct and that the offense proscribes conduct regardless of what result might occur from the conduct.” Thus, “the trial court did not err by omitting the ‘result of his conduct’ language from the definition for ‘intentionally’ in the jury charge.” AL

Divorce and Child Custody Surveillance ~ Undercover Background Checks Computer & Phone Forensics Corporate Investigations Expert Testimony and more STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

“Information is power, the not knowing is devastating.” 18

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

Anji Maddox

Featured in Forbes Magazine

Austin, Round Rock, & Dallas

OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

LOCAL JURY TRIAL VERDICTS

August 2025 District & County Court Jury Trial Verdicts BY VELVA PRICE, TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

CIVIL/FAMILY Juan Delapena, Ind. and as Next Friend of CD, a Minor, and Korina Delapena, Ind. and on Behalf of the Estate of CD, a Minor Deceased, v. Highpoint Community Ministries D/B/A High Hopes Summer Camp and Glasheen, Valles & Inderman LLP Cause No.: D-1-GN-19-007803 Judge: Maria Cantu Hexsel Dates: August 4-7, 2025 Attorneys: Plaintiffs: Brian Buster, Hajjar/ Peters, LLP (Austin) Intervenors: Kevin Glasheen, Glasheen, Valles & Inderman, LLP (Austin) and Lance Christopher Kassab and David Eric Kassab of The Kassab Law Firm (Houston) Summary: The breach of contract portion of the case was presented to the jury. The law firm Glasheen, Valles & Inderman, LLP, (‘Glasheen’) presented the underlying facts in their motion for judgment: The plaintiffs retained Glasheen to represent them due to the death of their daughter allegedly caused by the negligence of Highpoint Community Ministries d/b/a High Hopes Summer Camp (‘HHSC’).

Glasheen filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Delapenas and the defendant agreed to a settlement of $2 million. The plaintiffs would not agree to the settlement and requested additional terms, such as suing the City of Cedar Park and having HHSC pay for the attorneys’ fees, in addition to the $2 million. Glasheen did not comply with these requests. The Plaintiffs then retained Hajjar Peters, LLP. Hajjar Peters settled the case for the $2 million with no additional terms, but Glasheen did not receive their alleged portion of the contingency contract. Glasheen intervened in the wrongful death case filed by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs filed a counterclaim against Glasheen for breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence. The plaintiffs’ counterclaims were dismissed by the Court as a directed verdict during the trial. A unanimous jury panel found that Juan and Korina Delapena failed to comply with the written contingency contract with Glasheen. The jury further found that Juan and Korina Delapena did not have good cause to terminate or discharge Glasheen. The jury awarded $801,032.18 to fairly and reasonably compensate Glasheen for damages for failure to comply.

The jury further awarded the reasonable necessary attorney fees for the breach of contract claim: trial court representation - $122,605; court of appeals representation - $35,000; petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas - $15,000; merits briefing - $20,000; oral arguments and completion of proceedings with the Supreme Court of Texas - $10,000. Luana Riberio-Washington v. Riverplace Obgyn PA, Dana Wicker, NP. and John Thoppil, MD Cause No.: D-1-GN-23-005386 Judge: Laurie Eiserloh Dates: August 4-7, 2025 Attorneys: Plaintiffs: Rhianon Kelso, Kelso Law, PLLC (Dallas) Defendants: Stephen A. Mitchell, Steed Dunnill Reynolds Bailey Stephenson LLP (Austin) Summary: The plaintiff claims that she went in for a well-woman exam to have an IUD inserted by the defendants, which occurred without proper testing to determine that she was pregnant. The lawsuit further claimed that the plaintiff miscarried due to the insertion of the IUD. Ten jurors found the defendants’, Wicker and Thoppil, negligence caused the plaintiff’s miscarriage, Wicker 35 percent and Thoppil 65 percent. The jury awarded damages as follows: Past physical pain - $75,000; past mental anguish - $75,000; past physical impairment - $5,000; past necessary reasonable medical care expenses - $33,232.10.

Patrick

Keel

Mediator Arbitrator

Former District Judge

patrickkeel.com Available by video and in person.

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

Angela Levy v. Angel Donuts & Treats, LLC Cause No.: D-1-GN-23-007618 Judge: Catherine Mauzy Dates: August 5-7, 2025 Attorneys: Plaintiff: Israel Medina/Justin Hancock, Melendez Law Firm, PLLC (Austin) Defendant: Adam Wyma, Law Offices of Fanaff, Gonzales, Baldwin & Cunningham (Austin) Summary: Plaintiff claimed that on or around August 2023, she ran into a metal table and severely cut her leg at the defendant’s premises. Ten of the jurors found that neither party was negligent. Note: At the time of the trial, Plaintiff had been diagnosed with dementia and did testify, but did not attend some of the trial. David Valdez v. Sarah Alexander Cause No.: D-1-GN-23-00034 Judge: Sherine Thomas Dates: August 5-8, 2025 Attorneys: Plaintiff: Charles Dunn, DC Law, PLLC (Austin) Defendants: Catherine Kein, Mark Lapidus, Lapidus Knudson, PC (Austin) Summary: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant rear-ended him on Highway 71 on or about August 2021. Ten of the jurors found that neither party was negligent. Additional cases available on austinlawyeronline.com.

Federal Permitting and the Judicial Acorn BY CALEB SHOOK, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

n May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court added another chapter to its evolving project of administrative law reform—this time turning its attention to federal environmental permitting. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al v. Eagle County, Colorado et al, the justices ventured into the thicket of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a statute long celebrated for its environmental ideals but criticized for its procedural backlog. Seven County marks the Court’s most significant intervention in NEPA jurisprudence in years. With a tone of impatience toward bureaucratic hurdles, the majority opinion brings NEPA “back in line with the statutory text and common sense.” Casting NEPA as a procedural guardrail, rather than a substantive hurdle, the Court declared that the

statute is meant to “inform agency decision making, not paralyze it.” In doing so, Seven County may not uproot NEPA, but it takes a judicial axe to some of the thicker branches that have tangled the permitting process for decades. The Legislative Acorn NEPA grew out of the 1960s environmental movement. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the statute requires federal agencies to prepare an “environmental impact statement” (EIS) identifying the significant environmental effects of certain infrastructure projects. Among other requirements, NEPA directs agencies to consider both the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. Direct effects stem immediately from the project itself—such as the destruction of habitat to build a new railway. In-

direct effects, by contrast, are one step removed: they may be causally linked to the project but typically arise from separate or subsequent activities, like increased oil drilling made more viable by the construction of a rail line. This distinction has generated a disproportionate share of NEPA litigation. As the Court notes in Seven County, agencies have become weary of potential lawsuits based on the alleged failure to account for indirect impacts. In response, they often overcompensate with sprawling environmental reviews that can take four years or more to complete. What began as a tool to ensure informed decision-making has evolved into a procedural gauntlet. NEPA was intended to ensure that the “public are aware” of environmental consequences of agency actions. While it has accomplished that goal, decades of judicial inter-

partners: Keith D. Maples

Andrea (Andi) St. Leger Judith Bryant

pretation has turned this “legislative acorn” into a “judicial oak” that hinders infrastructure development. It is within this forest of bureaucratic entanglement that the Supreme Court stepped in to cull this judicial overgrowth. Seven County In December of 2021, the United States Surface Transportation Board (Board) approved a proposal from Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to build an 85-mile rail line in Utah. This railroad would connect parts of Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national railroad network for the primary purpose of facilitating the transportation of crude oil from Utah down to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The Board prepared an EIS which detailed numerous significant and adverse environmental impacts resulting from the railway’s

Sam D. Colletti Coleen Kinsler

Hillery R. Kaplan Leigh de la Reza

associate attorneys: Arielle Rosvall, Emily Tesmer, Ryan Curington

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

construction and operation. The EIS considered several direct effects on wetlands, land use, air pollution, and big-game movement. However, the EIS only partially considered the possible indirect effects of future increases in upstream oil production as a result of the expanded railway. The Board justified this limited analysis by pointing out that those effects would be the result of “separate, independent projects” and they were outside of its regulatory authority. Justifications that the DC Circuit did not agree with, so it vacated the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed holding that the lower court “failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases” and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the USTB to consider the effects of projects separate in “time or place from the Unita Basin.” Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, states that “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on” an agency’s final decision to approve a proposed project. When an agency is producing an EIS, it is not interpreting a statute. If it were, then little deference would be given to it. Instead, the lack of substantive constraints imposed by NEPA leaves a court’s “only role” as confirming “that the agency has addressed the environmental consequences” of the project. Continuing to chop at the judicial oak tree, Justice Kavanaugh proclaims that agencies are not required to consider the indirect environmental impacts of related but separately regulated projects. This is especially true when the agency has no jurisdiction over those projects. Even when an agency’s EIS falls short or misses the mark, the majority opinion makes clear that NEPA does not mandate an agency’s decision to be vacated. Absent a serious flaw, an agency’s decision should be left intact. The Court’s decision was 8-0 in judgment (Justice Gorsuch recused), Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a concurrence that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her concurrence would have limited the majorities reasoning to agencies with similarly restricted statutes as the Board’s.

Pruning the Oak, Not Uprooting it Seven County did not completely fell the NEPA oak tree, but it has certainly lopped off a few branches. The decision signals a judicial desire to restrain NEPA’s procedural sprawl without overturning its foundational roots. Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion underscores that NEPA is not a substantive environmental statute but a procedural one. By reining in the scope of “indirect effects” and emphasizing agency deference, the Court has shifted the balance in favor of streamlined approvals. Developers will likely benefit from the Court’s narrowed inter-

pretation. Agencies may now feel emboldened to draw tighter lines around what they must consider, particularly regarding downstream or upstream effects beyond their jurisdiction. While litigants hoping to challenge a project through NEPA could find less success in doing so. Still, Seven County is not a total retreat from environmental oversight. Agencies remain obligated to take a “hard look” at the environmental effects of their projects, and judicial review, while more deferential, has not been extinguished. In this way, NEPA remains alive, though perhaps more pruned and less entangled in speculative causation. AL

Caleb Shook is a staff attorney in the Water Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Y’all. Y’all | definition: meaning to refer to a group of people – “you all”. As in, we’d like to help y’all succeed. We know Texas. Since 1979, we’ve been protecting Texas lawyers, across all Texas jurisdictions, in all areas of practice. We use the best Texas defense trial lawyers around. And, we insure more lawyers in the State of Texas than any other insurance provider. Y’all is who we serve. Apply today to be protected by the best.

We help Texas attorneys succeed.

TLIE.ORG or (512) 480-9074 5_5625 x 6_75in_Austin Lawyer_TLIE Ads_2025.indd 1

1/20/25 1:00 PM

OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

August CANLaw Clinic Volunteers Drive Event Success

hank you to the following attorneys, paralegals, law and high school students who helped staff the Aug. 23 CANLaw Clinic! Be on the lookout for calls for volunteers for future CANLaw Clinics! ATTORNEYS Nadia Bettac Kelly Combs Cindy Crosby Cassandra Cuellar Sarah Eddy Helen Edwards Emily Franco Terry Garrett Christina Hanson Melanie Ibarra Madison Jechow Paola Limon Stephanie Long Ana McPherson Thomas Mehaffy

Tyra Perkins Rob Rice Chuck Ruesink Charles Smaistrla Geoffrey Van Olden Abigail Ventress Vanisha Weatherspoon LAW STUDENTS Brylee Brandt Weize Ning Natalie Glasper

Rob Holcomb MEDIATOR

\Construction | Business | Real Estate | Consumer HOLCOMB-LAW.COM RDH@HOLCOMB-LAW.COM (512) 476-1121

HOLCOMB LAW, PLLC

4407 South IH-35, Suite 201 Georgetown, TX 78626 24

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

Anran Wang Caroline Deale PARALEGALS Megan Austin Carli Collins Ben Dworin Katie Gleason Marybeth Greenough Terri Grona Amber Haney Erin Hill

Jennifer LaRose Diana Price Morgan Rains-Walker Celeste Rodriguez Michelle Stokes Vivian Yung Heather Zoric HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT Frances Claire Cubriel

Austin Bar Member Hatchell Wins Pope Award from Texas Center for Legal Ethics BY TEXAS CENTER FOR LEGAL ETHICS

he Texas Center for Legal Ethics has awarded Austin attorney Mike Hatchell the 2025 Chief Justice Jack Pope Professionalism Award. Each year, the Texas Center for Legal Ethics presents the Pope Award to a judge or attorney who personifies the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in appellate law. The Pope Award is named for former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jack Pope, one of the Texas Center for Legal Ethics’ founders and the first individual to receive the award in 2009. An acclaimed appellate attorney, Hatchell serves as appellate counsel at Haynes & Boone in Austin. He has been recognized in successive issues of Texas Lawyer’s “Go-To Guide” as one of the top five appel-

late lawyers in Texas and has served as lead counsel in more than 400 appeals. He is a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, serves on the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee, and received the Texas Bar Foundation’s 2015 Gregory S. Coleman Outstanding Appellate Lawyer Award. “Mike Hatchell is widely regarded as the dean of the Texas appellate bar—not only for his pioneering role when few appellate specialists existed, but for the standard of excellence, craftsmanship, and integrity he has set throughout his career,” said appellate attorney Kevin Dubose, who received the award in 2012. “Much of the unique culture of Texas appellate practice stems from having Mike as a role model. As a young lawyer,

I watched him speak at CLEs and hoped one day I might grow up to be like Mike Hatchell. I’m still waiting for that to happen.” Appellate attorney and 2019 Pope Award recipient Charles “Skip” Watson also had high praise for Hatchell. “In my opinion he was and is the finest appellate lawyer in Texas history.” Watson said. “I can only vouch that no one is more worthy of an award named after Jack Pope than Mike Hatchell.” The Pope Award was presented to Hatchell at the Annual Texas Supreme Court Historical Society Dinner on Sept. 5 in Austin. Founded in 1989 by Chief Justice Pope and two other retired Texas Supreme Court chief justices, the Texas Center for Legal

Mike Hatchell is the recipient of the 2025 Chief Justice Jack Pope Professionalism Award.

Ethics is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. Through educational programs, publications, and other resources, the Center supports lawyers in navigating ethical issues and encourages a culture of integrity and professionalism across the legal community. For more information about the Center, go to LegalEthicsTexas.com. AL

200 STEPS TO THE CAPITOL THREE BLOCKS TO THE COURTHOUSE FIVE MINUTES TO WILLIE NELSON BLVD FIFTY MILES OF BREATHTAKING VIEWS SPACES AVAILABLE BEFORE SESSION Featuring unique contemporary design accompanied with full height glass, professional on-site management, building conference room, fitness center, tenant lounge and abundant surrounding amenities

CAPITOL CENTER For more information: Julia Taylor 512.476.0919 taylorj @mooreassociates.com

OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

Texas Commission on Professional Ethics Opinion 708 Issued June 2025

Questions Presented: 1. May a Texas lawyer agree to be bound by a non-disparagement clause in a client settlement agreement? 2. May a Texas lawyer agree to be bound by a non-disclosure clause in a client settlement agreement, whereby the lawyer agrees not to reveal confidential information related to the representation for marketing purposes? Statement of Facts A lawyer represents a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant makes a settlement demand that requires both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer to agree to a broad non-disparagement clause regarding the defendant. The settlement demand also requires the plaintiff’s lawyer to agree not to reveal confidential information related to the representation for the lawyer’s marketing purposes, such as the facts of the matter and the terms of the settlement. The restriction would expressly prohibit disclosure of any such information on the lawyer’s website, social media accounts, or advertisements. The plaintiff wishes to accept the settlement demand. Discussion Rule 5.06(b) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct says that a “lawyer shall not participate in offering or making … an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a suit or controversy … .” Comment 2 explains that Rule 5.06(b) “prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.” But Rule 5.06(b) is not limited to explicit agreements not to represent or sue a particular party; it applies to any “restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice” as part of a settlement. This is a broad concept that extends to virtually all 26

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

aspects of the practice of law and excludes only restrictions that already appear in the Rules. For example, Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 505 (Aug. 1994) applied Rule 5.06(b) to a settlement agreement that would have required the plaintiff’s lawyer not to solicit clients in future cases involving the defendant and not to share fees in such cases. In discussing whether the agreement would violate Rule 5.06(b), the Committee said the “key issue is whether or not a settlement agreement … would in any way prevent a lawyer from representing another person.” The Committee observed the intent of the proposed clauses was “to limit an attorney from representing a client similarly situated in a matter against the opposing party.” Applying Rule 5.06(b), the Committee first noted that “solicitation is part of the practice of law and therefore cannot be more severely restricted in a settlement agreement than it is restricted in the Rules and applicable law.” The Committee concluded that an agreement not to solicit clients for future cases against the same defendant would exceed the current limitations on solicitation provided by the Rules and would restrict a lawyer’s right to practice in violation of Rule 5.06(b). The Committee similarly noted that fee sharing is part of the practice of law and is also “somewhat regulated.” It therefore concluded that, “[t]o the extent that fee sharing is not in violation of the applicable laws and rules, such cannot be further limited by settlement agreements.” Thus, in analyzing whether a lawyer may agree to be bound by a provision in a client’s settlement agreement, the dispositive question is whether the provision in any way restricts the practice of law beyond the existing restrictions in the Rules. 1. A Texas lawyer may not

agree to be bound by a non-disparagement clause in a client settlement agreement. Generally, a non-disparagement clause is a “contractual provision prohibiting the parties from publicly communicating anything negative about each other.” Black’s Law Dictionary 305 (10th ed. 2014); see also KLN Steel Products Co., Ltd. v. CNA Ins. Companies, 278 S.W.3d 429, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (relying on dictionary definition when interpreting non-disparagement clause; noting “disparage” means “to lower in rank or reputation; DEGRADE” or “speak slightingly about”) (citing Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 360 (11th ed. 2003)). Using this broad definition, the Committee is of the opinion that a lawyer may not agree to be personally bound by a non-disparagement clause in a client settlement agreement that applies to statements the lawyer might make in the course of practicing law. A broad non-disparagement clause would effectively prohibit the lawyer from representing another client adverse to the same opposing party by preventing the lawyer from making allegations of misconduct by the opposing party. Likewise, a broad non-disparagement clause would restrict a lawyer’s right to practice by limiting the lawyer’s ability to consult freely with current or prospective clients about claims they may have against the opposing party. The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility noted “a claimant’s attorney should not agree to a settlement restriction giving the attorney significantly less discretion in the prosecution of a claim than an attorney independent of the agreement would have.” ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 00-417 (2000) (“Settlement Terms Limiting a

Lawyer’s Use of Information”) (quoting Colo. Bar Ethics Comm. Op. No. 92 (1993)). We conclude the ABA’s statement accurately describes the restriction imposed by Rule 5.06(b). A term in a client settlement agreement that forbids a lawyer from disparaging an opposing party is a restriction on the lawyer’s ability to practice law that is prohibited by Rule 5.06(b). Under Rule 5.06(b), therefore, a lawyer may not participate in offering or making a client settlement agreement under which a lawyer for one of the parties agrees to a general non-disparagement clause. We do not, however, suggest a lawyer may never be a party to a non-disparagement clause. If, for example, the clause does not restrict statements made within the lawyer’s law practice, but only limits the lawyer’s personal speech or conduct outside the practice of law, it would not violate Rule 5.06(b). 2. A Texas lawyer may agree to be bound by a provision in a client settlement agreement that prohibits the lawyer from revealing client confidential information for marketing purposes, so long as the provision does not prohibit communication of the lawyer’s general experience. Marketing, like solicitation, is part of the practice of law. See Opinion 505. A lawyer may not participate in offering or making a settlement agreement that restricts the lawyer’s ability to reveal or use confidential information for marketing purposes beyond the limitations already found in the Rules and applicable law. A lawyer may, however, agree to a non-disclosure agreement that does not expand the existing restrictions on revealing confidential information. A lawyer’s ability to reveal or use information acquired during a representation is governed by Rules 1.05 and 1.09. Rule 1.05(b)

provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal “confidential information” of a current or former client, or use such information to the disadvantage of the client, without the client’s consent after consultation or in other specified circumstances described in Rule 1.05. “Confidential information” comprises not only information subject to the attorney-client privilege but also unprivileged “information relating to a client or furnished by the client … acquired by the lawyer during the course of or by reason of the representation of the client.” Rule 1.05(a). This definition is broad and, depending on the circumstances, may extend to information in public pleadings or that third parties can discover on their own. See Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall, 887 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex. 1994) (“virtually any information relating to a case should be considered confidential”); In re Liebbe, No. 12-19-00044-CV, 2019 WL 1416637, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 29, 2019, no pet.) (finding that former client’s marital status was “confidential information” under Rule 1.05 even though it could be discovered by a third party); Sealed Party v. Sealed Party, No. CIV.A. H-04-2229, 2006 WL 1207732, at *10–15 (S.D. Tex. May 4, 2006) (finding that the definition of “confidential information” in Rule 1.05 may extend to information available in public court pleadings); see also Opinion 595 (February 2010) (stating that client confidential information under Rule 1.05 includes information that a lawyer obtains from public records during representation of a former client).

Rule 1.09(c) addresses the use or disclosure of information relating to a former representation: (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client. Thus, if no exception applies and the client has not consented, both Rules 1.05 and 1.09 already prohibit a lawyer from revealing information obtained during a representation. A contract that prohibits a lawyer from revealing such information for marketing purposes does not violate Rule 5.06(b) if the prohibition does not exceed the existing scope of Rules 1.05 and 1.09. See ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (discussing ABA Model Rules 1.6 and 1.9 and noting “[a] proposed settlement provision, agreed to by the client, that prohibits the lawyer from disclosing information relating to the representation is no more than what is required by the Model Rules absent client consent … .”). On the other hand, a non-disclosure provision in a client settlement agreement violates Rule

5.06(b) if it extends to communication of the lawyer’s general experience gained in handling the settled matter. The Rules do not prohibit lawyers from sharing their general experience and qualifications with prospective clients. See Rule 7.01, comment 10 (discussing what constitutes a misleading communication concerning a lawyer’s experience); Rule 7.02(b) and comment 3 (providing that lawyer advertisements may communicate that the lawyer “does or does not practice in particular fields of law” and commenting that advertisements “must be objectively based on the lawyer’s experience … .”). An agreement preventing the disclosure of a lawyer’s general experience with certain types of matters or certain categories of clients or parties would undermine the purpose of Rule 5.06 by reducing the ability of prospective clients to select the lawyer best suited for their matter. See Rule 5.06, comment 1 (noting restrictions on right to practice “limit[] the freedom of clients to choose a lawyer”); Opinion 699 (Feb. 2024) (noting that Rule 5.06 promotes the client’s right to choose counsel); ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (noting Model Rule 5.6 helps ensure “access of the public to lawyers who, by virtue of their background and experience, might be the very best available talent to represent” them); ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 93-371 (1993) (“Restrictions on the Right to Represent Clients in the Future”) (discussing the rationale behind Model Rule 5.6, which is functionally identical to Rule 5.06). A settlement agree-

ment that prohibits a lawyer from discussing the lawyer’s general experience gained in the settled matter impermissibly restricts the lawyer’s right to practice in violation of Rule 5.06(b). Conclusion A Texas lawyer may not participate in offering or making a client settlement agreement whose terms would impose greater restrictions on the lawyer’s right to practice law than those imposed by the law and Rules. For this reason, a lawyer may not participate in offering or making a client settlement agreement that commits a settling party’s lawyer not to disparage the opposing party within the context of the lawyer’s practice. A Texas lawyer may participate in offering or making a client settlement agreement that commits a settling party’s lawyer not to reveal confidential information related to the matter for marketing purposes, provided the restriction applies only to confidential information that, under the Rules, a lawyer may not reveal without client consent. AL

You’re busy looking out for your clients’ needs. Who’s looking out for yours? Jim Kaighin, Jr., CFP

Financial Professional

3305 Northland Dr., Suite 414

512-302-6051

Austin, TX 78731

kaighinjr@momentumin.com

Member: FINRA/SIPC OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

Introducing 8am™: A New Day for Professionals SPONSORED CONTENT

Introducing 8am™: A new day for professionals AffiniPay, the team behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer, and DocketWise, is now 8am™. This marks a new chapter in how we support professionals like you— we’re more connected, more purposeful, and more invested in your success than ever before. The vision behind 8am The name 8am was chosen with intention. It reflects structure, focus, and purpose—the same values that guide your workday and ours. As Dru Armstrong, CEO of 8am, explains: “8am brings together everything we’ve created into a unified, trusted platform designed to deliver even more value to professionals. It’s a name that speaks to focus, structure, and purpose—the way our customers begin each day, and the way we show up for them.” This rebrand is a culmination of two decades of building trusted solutions like MyCase, LawPay, DocketWise, CasePeer, and CPACharge, and it reflects how far we’ve come. Today, our combined solutions serve over 267,000 customers and support more than 75,000 firms across legal, accounting, associations, and more. What this means for you Whether you’re a longtime customer of the 8am solutions or just getting to know us, here’s what to expect with this rebrand: • The same product with the same login and familiar experience • A stronger foundation for innovation: Over the next year, you’ll see even more integrations and enhancements that provide greater value for your practice.

“I hear from professionals every day about their challenges and ambitions. This change is for them—for you. It’s about creating consistency, clarity, and a platform that’s ready to meet your needs, not just today, but well into the future.” – Dru Armstrong, CEO of 8am A platform built to grow with you The transition from AffiniPay to 8am isn’t just about branding—it’s about building a unified, purpose-driven experience across the solutions you rely on every day. The solutions you know aren’t going anywhere, but the way 8am works and evolves legal practice management is always improving. At its core, 8am is all about you and your success, not just today, but over the long term. As Nate Skinner, CMO of 8am puts it:

• More connected experiences: By unifying our solutions under 8am, we will provide a more cohesive, connected business platform that reduces friction and allows you to make the most of your day.

“8am isn’t just our new name—it’s our commitment to you. It gives us the momentum to build stronger relationships, connect more meaningfully, and deliver greater value in every interaction.”

This rebrand won’t disrupt how you use your trusted solution—it simply strengthens its foundation, bringing more clarity and value to every part of your journey.

The 8am look may be new, but the mission remains the same—to help you work smarter, serve your clients better, and grow your business. Read more about 8am at www.8am.com/our-story/.

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

The Bill of Rights, Explained for Kids (And Grown-Ups Too!) BY SONIA JOSEPH, ROUND ROCK HIGH SCHOOL

s a writer deeply invested in making the law more accessible, I recently published a children’s book titled 10 Rights Every Ten-Year-Old Should Know. At its heart, the book is about one thing: explaining the Bill of Rights in a way that even a 10-year-old can understand. The idea didn’t come to me all at once. It grew out of years of writing about the Constitution and its role in everyday life. Over time, I found myself asking an increasingly persistent question: Why is it so difficult to understand the very rights that govern us? If the Bill of Rights applies to everyone in America, shouldn’t everyone be able to talk about it, regardless of age, background, or education? That question stuck with me. The more I thought about it, the more I realized how late we tend to introduce these concepts to young people. In many schools, lessons on the Constitution are pushed to later grades, often taught in a dry, formal way that doesn’t connect with the reality kids live every day. The language is complex, the context can feel far removed, and the relevance often goes unexplained. But what if those concepts didn’t have to be abstract or inaccessible? What if we could explain the core rights that shape our country in a way that felt familiar and understandable, even to a child? So I started writing. I wasn’t trying to produce a textbook or an official legal document. I wanted to create something that spoke directly to kids. I wanted it to feel like a conversation rather than a lecture. The idea was to present each of the first ten amendments in a way that made sense to a young mind—using clear language, relatable examples, and a tone that respects their intelligence without overwhelming them. 10 Rights Every Ten-Year-Old

Should Know was the result. It is a short, straightforward guide to the Bill of Rights, written with children in mind but grounded in a larger belief: that this information belongs to all of us. The rights in the Constitution are not just for lawyers, judges, or politicians. They are for every American. And that absolutely includes our kids. I chose to self-publish this book, not with commercial success in mind, but because I believed in the importance of putting it into the world. I imagined parents sitting down with their children to talk through each chapter. I pictured teachers using the book as a bridge between social studies lessons and real-world understanding. Most of all, I hoped it could give kids a sense of ownership over their own rights. The structure of the book is simple. Each chapter focuses on one amendment in the Bill of Rights, explained in a way that keeps the reader’s interest while still providing the necessary facts. These are not distant legal theories. They are everyday ideas that children already think about, even if they do not yet have the vocabulary to name them. My motivation for writing this book was straightforward. I believe that legal knowledge should never feel out of reach. Too often, we treat the law like it belongs to a separate world—a world of courtrooms, complex statutes, and formal language. But the truth is that the law shapes our communities, our schools, and even our friendships. When we make legal education exclusive, we also make it less effective. That is especially true for young people, who are already learning how to navigate fairness, rules, and accountability in their daily lives. When we introduce constitutional rights early, we help create the conditions for more informed, more confident citizens. Kids who

understand their rights grow up more prepared to speak up for themselves and others. They learn how to ask questions. They begin to recognize fairness and unfairness not just as feelings, but as principles rooted in law. They start to see the legal system as something that should serve the people—not just govern them from a distance. This book is only one small effort in a much larger mission. But I believe it matters. I believe we need more tools like this—books, lessons, and conversations that help children see themselves as participants in a shared civic life. Because when we teach young people that their voices count, we are not only educating them. We are strengthening our democracy. The Bill of Rights is not just a

historical document written centuries ago. It is a living framework for how we operate as a society today. The sooner our kids can make sense of it, the more they can contribute to shaping a future that is fair, just, and informed. If 10 Rights Every Ten-YearOld Should Know helps even one child begin that journey, then it has done its job. AL Sonia Joseph is a high schooler passionate about law and civic education. Inspired to make legal concepts accessible, she wrote a children’s book about the Bill of Rights. Her goal is to help all people— especially young readers—understand the rights they are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. To read more by Sonia, and to buy her book, visit her website at themistice.com. OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

Practical Tips for Parents: Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse BY THE CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION

s a parent, keeping your child safe is always top of mind. Whether it’s teaching them to look both ways before crossing the street or to wear a helmet while riding their bike, you’re constantly helping them navigate the world with caution. But one of the most critical—and often overlooked—areas of safety is protecting your child from sexual abuse. At the Center for Child Protection, we believe education and open, ongoing communication are the most powerful tools in preventing child sexual abuse (CSA). This article will teach you the facts about CSA and offer practical tips to empower your child, reduce their vulnerability, and create an environment where they feel safe, supported, and prepared—even when you’re not around. Know the Facts: Dispelling Common Myths About CSA Understanding the realities of child sexual abuse is the first step in prevention. Here are some common myths—and the facts that dispel them: MYTH: CSA doesn’t happen very often. FACT: 1 in 10 children will be sexually abused before their 18th birthday.1 MYTH: Children will tell someone if CSA occurs. FACT: 3 out of 5 children never disclose their abuse.2 MYTH: Most CSA is committed by strangers. FACT: 90% of children are sexually abused by someone they know and trust.1 MYTH: Only adults perpetrate CSA. FACT: About one-third of abuse is committed by another child or youth.2 MYTH: CSA is impulsive and immediate. FACT: 99% of CSA involves an element of grooming—the deliberate 30

AUSTINLAWYER | OCTOBER 2025

process of building trust with the child AND parents to gain access and sexually abuse the child without detection.3, 5 MYTH: CSA only happens face-to-face. FACT: Abusers use the internet to exploit and manipulate children into sharing nude photos, engaging in sexual conversations, or meeting in-person for sexual purposes.1 What You Can Do: 5 Ways to Protect Your Child 1. Empower Your Child with Knowledge It’s never too early to begin teaching your child the proper names for their body parts. Using accurate language helps normalize conversations about their bodies, making it easier for them to speak up if something happens. It also reduces the shame or embarrassment that abusers rely on to keep children silent. Start with these foundational lessons: • Teach your child the proper names for all body parts. • Explain that private parts are private. • Talk about puberty’s bodily and emotional changes early and openly. • Children who can speak confidently about their bodies are better equipped to report inappropriate behavior and are less attractive targets to abusers.5 2. Create Safe Environments: In Person and Online Most abuse happens in isolated, one-on-one situations.1 Implementing open-door policies and regular check-ins can make it harder for abuse to occur. You can also reduce risk by asking any organization you child attends about their safety policies and how they screen staff. Risks exist online, as well. Abusers can now contact your child directly, so it’s also important to know what apps they use and who they’re talking to. In short, you should:

• Make one-on-one time observable and interruptible. • Carefully vet caregivers, schools, and programs for safety. • Monitor your child’s online activity and app use. • As a parent, it’s your responsibility to create environments—physically and digitally—that leave no place for abuse to hide. 3. Build a Strong Relationship Your relationship with your child sets the foundation for their safety.5 Normalize having educational conversations about sex, consent, and relationships with your child. Over time, this consistent, open communication will build trust, encourage questions, and show your child that you’re a safe person to talk to—about anything. Foster your relationship by: • Having honest, ongoing conversations where no topic is off-limits. • Staying actively involved in your child’s activities. • Using everyday situations to talk about body safety. • Start early and talk often. Even if it feels awkward at first, these conversations help build a strong relationship with your child and play a vital role in protecting them from sexual abuse. 4. Teach Body Boundaries Children who feel confident setting boundaries are less likely to be targeted by abusers.5 That confidence starts with knowing that they have the right to say “no” to unwanted touch. No one—even friends and family—should be allowed to force physical affection on your child. You can make sure your child feels in control of who touches them and how by: • Setting examples for safe boundaries in everyday life. • Teaching your child how to say “no” clearly and confidently. • Respecting and supporting their right to establish body boundaries.

• Encouraging bodily autonomy reduces your child’s vulnerability to abuse by strengthening their confidence, sense of self-worth, and ability to assert themselves.5 5. Establish a “No Secrets” Policy Secrecy is a powerful tool abusers use to maintain control. Abusers often convince children that speaking out will lead to punishment, disbelief, or blame. Online, abusers may take this further by using threats or blackmail to sexually exploit children and keep them silent.4 To counter these tactics, you can: • Establish a “no secrets” rule in your home. • Remind your child that it’s never their fault and you will always believe them. • Reassure your child they will never get in trouble for telling the truth. • One convicted abuser put it bluntly: “Secrecy and blame were my best weapons.”3 You can take those weapons away by building a culture of openness and trust with your child. Keep the Conversation Going We know conversations about sexual abuse can be difficult—but avoiding them won’t make the risks disappear. The more you know and the more you communicate with your child, the safer they’ll be. Stay informed by attending the Center for Child Protection’s free Monthly Webinar Series or scheduling a Group Parent Workshop— where we cover topics like online safety, grooming, and how to talk to your child about body safety. We also offer a Corporate Education Series for companies and professional organizations. Visit protectaustinkids.org to view our upcoming webinars and education offerings. ENDNOTES

1 Darkness to Light. Child Sexual Abuse: All Statistics. Darkness to Light, Feb. 2025, https://www.d2l. org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ Child-Sexual-Abuse-All-Statistics. pdf. PDF file. 2 “Ending Child Sexual Abuse.” Children’s Advocacy Centers of Texas, 2024. https://cactx.org/ ending-child-sexual-abuse/. 3 Jeglic, Elizabeth L., Georgia M. Winters, and Benjamin N. Johnson. “Identification of Red Flag Child

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation (All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications)

1. Publication Title

2. Publication Number

Austin Lawyer

3. Filing Date

1071-0353 _

09/26/2025

Sexual Grooming Behaviors.” Child Missing & Exploited Children, 2025. 4. Issue Frequency 5. Number of Issues Published Annually 6. Annual Subscription Price Abuse & Neglect, vol. 136, 2023, https://www.missingkids.org/theis$10 Monthly except combined July/August and Dec/Jan issues 10 article no.Address 105998, https:/ /www. Contact Person 7. Complete Mailing of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, sues/sextortion. state, and ZIP+4 ) Huntsman 712sciencedirect.com/science/article/ W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 5 J eglic, Elizabeth, Billy and Cynthia Calkins. Telephone (Include area code) Management, and Circulation (512) 472-0279 pii/S0145213422005324.Statement of Ownership, Protecting Your Child from Sexual (All Periodicals Except Requester Publications) 8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business OfficePublications of Publisher (Not printer) 41.712 “Sextortion.” National Center for Abuse. Skyhorse Publishing, 2022. Publication Title 2. Publication Number 3. Filing Date W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701

ADVERTISERS

Austin Lawyer

1071-0353 _

09/26/2025

4. Full Issue Frequency 5. Number Issues Published 9. Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor of (Do not leave blank)Annually Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)

6. Annual Subscription Price

7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4 ®)

Contact Person

Editor (Name and 1. Publication Titlecomplete mailing address)

Telephone (Include area code) 3. Filing Date

$10 Monthly except combined July/August and Dec/Jan issues 10 Sail House Publishing, 3510 Crowncrest Dr., Austin, TX 78759 of Ownership, Management, and Circulation Statement

Billy Huntsman (All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications) 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 2. Publication Number

(512) 472-0279 09/26/2025

Billy Huntsman, Austin Lawyer 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 1071-0353 _ 8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer) 4. Issue Frequency 5. Number of Issues Published Annually 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)

6. Annual Subscription Price

$10

Monthly except combined July/August and Dec/Jan issues 10 Billy Huntsman, 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701

Billy Huntsman Publisher (Name and complete mailing address) 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followedarea by the Telephone (Include code) Sail House Publishing, 3510 Crowncrest Dr., Austin, TX 78759 names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the (512) 472-0279 names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of 8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer) each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.) Editor (Name and complete mailing address) 712Name W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 Full Complete Mailing Address Billy Huntsman, 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 Austin Bar Association

Texas Appellate Counsel, PLLC.................24

Apple Leasing..................................................... 7

Texas Lawyers Insurance Exchange........23

Armbrust & Brown PLLC...............................13

The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals................................................................3

Broadway Bank Holdsworth & Nicholas, Inc.........................BC Brusniak Turner............................................... 15 Cofer & Connelly, PLLC..................................21 Foster Global, LLP............................................. 4

Contact Person

7. Full Complete Address Mailing of Known Office of of Publication printer) city, county, and ZIP+4 9. NamesMailing and Complete Addresses Publisher,(Not Editor, and (Street, Managing Editor (Dostate, not leave blank)®)

8am LawPay........................................... IFC, 28

712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701

InfoTrack..............................................................9 JAMS................................................................... 19

Editor (Name mailing 10. Owner (Doand not complete leave blank. If theaddress) publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the Billy Huntsman, 712 W.of18th Street, Austin, TravisbyCounty 78701or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of names and addresses the individual owners.TX If owned a partnership each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.) Full Name Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding Complete Mailing Address 11. Known 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address) OtherBar Securities. If none, check box 712 W. 18th None Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701 Austin Association

Lakeside Mediation Center......................... 19

Full Name

Complete Mailing Address

712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701

Austin Bar Association

Law Office of Thomas Esparza, Jr., P.C.... 3 Loewy Law Firm................................................5 Momentum Independent Network.......... 27 Moore & Associates, Inc...............................25 Noelke Maples St. Leger Bryant, LLP.......22

11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or None Other Securities. If none, check box

Patrick Keel......................................................20

FullTax Name Mailing Address 12. Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at Complete nonprofit rates) (Check one) The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes:

Rose Resolution Group..................................13

Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)

Scott Baker Mediation, LLC........................10

13. Form Publication PS 3526, Title July 2014 [Page 1 of 4 (see instructions page 4)] PSN: 7530-01-000-9931

14. Issue for Circulation Below PRIVACY NOTICE: SeeDate our privacy policy onData www.usps.com.

Austin Lawyer

11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or None Other Securities. If none, check box 15. Extent and Nature of Circulation No. Copies of Single Full Name Complete Mailing Address Average No. Copies Each Issue During Issue Published Preceding 12 Months Nearest to Filing Date

Vaught Law Firm.............................................. 7

Holcomb Law, PLLC.......................................24

Sail Publishing, Dr.,TX Austin, 7875978701 Billy House Huntsman, 712 W.3510 18th Crowncrest Street, Austin, TravisTX County

10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.) Full Name Complete Mailing Address

UT Austin Center for Professional Education............................31

Hargett Mediation Reed, Claymon, Meeker & Hargett, PLLC.....16

9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank) Publisher (Name and complete mailingmailing address) Managing Editor (Name and complete address)

Billy Huntsman, 712 W. 18th Street, Austin, TX Travis County 78701

The Snell Law Firm..........................................17

She Spies Private Eye, Inc.............................18 Slack Davis Sanger.......................................... 11

12. Tax Status (For completion nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one) a. Total Number of Copies by (Net press run) The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes: Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months Mailed Outside-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541 (Include paid Has Changed(1)During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement) 134 164 distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies) PRIVACY NOTICE: See our privacy policy on www.usps.com. b. Paid Circulation (2) Mailed In-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541 (Include paid 1584 1674 distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies) (By Mail and Outside 12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofitOutside organizations authorized mail Through at nonprofit rates)and (Check one) Paid Distribution the Mails Includingto Sales Dealers Carriers, (3) the Mail) 0 0 ® The purpose, function,Street and nonprofit of this organization exempt status for federal Vendors,status Counter Sales, and Otherand Paidthe Distribution Outside USPS income tax purposes:

PS Form 3526, July 2014 [Page 1 of 4 (see instructions page 4)] PSN: 7530-01-000-9931

Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months PaidPreceding Distribution by Other(Publisher Classes of Mailsubmit Through the USPS Has Changed(4)During 12 Months must explanation of change with this statement) 0 0 (e.g., First-Class Mail®) PRIVACY NOTICE: See our privacy policy on www.usps.com.

PS Form 3526, July 2014 [Page 1 of 4 (see instructions page 4)] PSN: 7530-01-000-9931

c. Total Paid Distribution [Sum of 15b (1), (2), (3), and (4)] d. Free or (1) Free or Nominal Rate Outside-County Copies included on PS Form 3541 Nominal Rate Distribution (2) Free or Nominal Rate In-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541 (By Mail and Free or Nominal Rate Copies Mailed at Other Classes Through the USPS Outside (3) (e.g., First-Class Mail) the Mail) (4)

Free or Nominal Rate Distribution Outside the Mail (Carriers or other means)

e. Total Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (Sum of 15d (1), (2), (3) and (4))

f. Total Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15e)

1718

1838

1718

1838

1718

1838

g. Copies not Distributed (See Instructions to Publishers #4 (page #3))

h. Total (Sum of 15f and g) i. Percent Paid (15c divided by 15f times 100)

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation 100 100 (All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications)

Electronic Copyelectronic Circulationcopies, go to line 16 on page 3. If you are not claiming electronic copies, skipAverage *16. If you are claiming to line 17No. on Copies page 3.

Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months

No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date

b. Total Paid Print Copies (Line 15c) + Paid Electronic Copies (Line 16a)

1718

1838

c. Total Print Distribution (Line 15f) + Paid Electronic Copies (Line 16a)

1718

1838

d. Percent Paid (Both Print & Electronic Copies) (16b divided by 16c Í 100)

100

a. Paid Electronic Copies

�

PARALEGAL TRAINING FROM UT AUSTIN Start a paralegal journey on your terms. UT Austin’s self-paced Paralegal Certificate Program provides in-depth training in essential legal areas, with enrollment available anytime. Boost your legal career in just 5 months with our instructor-led program – perfect for aspiring paralegals.

I certify that 50% of all my distributed copies (electronic and print) are paid above a nominal price.

17. Publication of Statement of Ownership

PS Form July 2014 2 ofpublication, 4) � If 3526, the publication is a(Page general publication of this statement is required. Will be printed

Publication not required.

10/1/25 in the ________________________ issue of this publication. 18. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner

Date

09/26/2025 I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions (including civil penalties).

Attend a free information session, or visit:

professionaled.utexas.edu/s/paralegal OCTOBER 2025 | AUSTINLAWYER

Big banks handle your money. We tailor your legacy. You deserve a banker that listens to your personal and professional goals to create custom strategies that feel just right. At Broadway Bank Private Banking, we provide you just that—a knowledgeable and dedicated single point of contact, available seven days a week. Come see what it’s like to bank in your own backyard.

P R I V AT E B A N K I N G • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 5 - 6 5 6 4 • B R O A D W AY. B A N K / P R I V AT E Private Banking at Broadway Bank is subject to eligibility qualifications. Eligibility criteria may include financial, professional, and/or account verification and evaluation. Subject to change without notice. Member FDIC. #1733639779/09/25