# Touchy v. Houston Legal Foundation

> Texas Supreme Court · June 26, 1968 · 11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 477

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761388

## Case

- **Full name:** Hugo A. TOUCHY Et Al., Petitioners, v. HOUSTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 26, 1968
- **Citations:** 11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 477; 432 S.W.2d 690; 1968 Tex. LEXIS 307
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Reavley, Smith
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761388

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that practicing attorneys had standing to bring suit to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The Foundation, in its motion for rehearing, alleges that the holding of this Court, as expressed in its opinion delivered on June 26, 1968, abridges the freedom of the poor and indigent to have legal services under the Economic Opportunity Act, and that the holding denies to the Foundation equal protection of the law and due process of the law as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The motion further charges that our holding constitutes governmental or state action in the domain of the indispensable liberties of speech, press or association, and results in abridgement of such rights.
There is no basis in the record which would justify such contentions. We simply held that the petitioners had standing to bring the suit, and having pleaded that the Foundation, as a corporation, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Article 320a-l, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, which prohibits non-lawyers [corporations] from practicing law, and having pleaded certain practices of the Foundation as being demeaning to the legal profession and harmful to the plaintiffs, the trial court improperly sustained the Foundation’s plea in abatement. The opinion specifically placed upon the petitioners the burden of pleading and proving such allegations. We adhere to our original holding that the trial court erred in sustaining the Foundation’s plea in abatement. Our opinion and the judgment thereafter rendered reinstating the cause on the docket of the District Court of Harris County, Texas, in no manner passed upon the issues urged in the motion for rehearing. The motion for rehearing is overruled. No further motions will be entertained.
REAVLEY, J., not sitting.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761388. Public record. Not legal advice.