# Appendix Vol I — Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0415%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix Vol I - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 493 U.S. 960 ## Text S| _ ee ee, ee ———————— 0 { i 3% Supreme Court, US, 3 FILED S9-9 99 H Sep 14 1989 NO. x) JOSEPH F. SPA: It ena IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1989 BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, Petitioner VS. THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS APPENDICES TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI e = Volume I Benton Musslewhite PRO SE 1535 Mellie Esperson Bldg. 815 Walker Houston, Texas 77002 y 713/222-2288 APPENDICES TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Appendix A. Judgment of Suspensi=a Entered by State District Court. B. Order of State District Court Denying Rule 47 Motion, Requesting Supersedeas. C. Order and Opinion of State Court of Appeals Denying Mandamus, Concerning Supersedeas. D. Order of Supreme Court of Texas Denying Mandamus, Concerning Supersedeas. E. Order Denying One - Justice Stay by Justice Byron White, Concerning Supersedeas. F. Order of State Court of Appeals, Denying Rule 49(b) Motion, Concerning Supersedeas. G. Order of Supreme Court of Texas, Dated June 14, 1989, Denying Mandamus With Respect To Court of Appeals' Denial of Rule 49(b) Motion, Concerning Supersedeas. H. Relevant Provisions of Texas State Bar Rules, Including Sec. 24, art. 10. I. Excerpts from news articles. be Announcement of Probe of Two "Agent Orange Lawyers" (Musslewhite and O'Quinn). 10. ee ame 13. National Article Concerning Dispute Between Musslewhite and O'Quinn and U.S. Army Over Arrow Air Cases. Bar Officials Launch Trial-In- Press; Announce 17 Houston Lawyers Being Investigated. Detailed Article Concerning "Masters of Disaster" Investigation. O'Quinn Complains of Selective Prosecuticn; Discusses Appoint- ment of Special Prosecutor. ABA Jl. Article Re "17 Lawyer" Investigation, Discussing Mostly Musslewhite and O'Quinn. Further Discussion in Press Of Special Prosecutor and Filing Of Disbarment Suits Against Musslewhite, O'Quinn and Schwartz. Further Discussion In Press Of Disbarment Suits Against 0O' wage and Musslewhite. Houston Chronicle "Guilt By Association" Article Re O'Quinn, Improperly Implicating Musslewhite. Another “Guilt by Association" Houston Chronicle Article, About O'Quinn, Again Impliedly Tying Musslewhite to Subject Matter. Musslewhite Vainly Tries To Clarify That He Is Not Part Of O'Quinn-McNeilly-Keen Situations. Article Announcing 2nd Disbarment Suit Against Musslewhite. Article Stating Jury Tampering Charges Against O'Quinn Untrue, Bat Still Bteationiag Musslewhite. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Special Prosecution Accused By, Certain Bar Officials Of Being "Runaway Prosecutor", Using "Vigilante" Tactics, And Conducting "Trial-In-The- Press". Another, More Detailed Article About Special Prosecutor Being "Runaway Prosecutor", Using "Vigilante" Tactics And "Trial- In-The-Press". Another Guilt-By-Association Article Whereby Alleged Witnesses Directly Accuse O'Quinn, But Musslewhite Improperly Implicated. Special Prosecutor Terminated Because Of Controversial, Trial- In-The-Press, Vigilante Tactics. Press Conference By Musslewhite Concerning Settlement With State Bar. Press Conference By Musslewhite Concerning Filing Of Hartman- Agent Orange Suit. Press Conference By Musslewhite And Newman Concerning The Piper Alpha Episode. Seec8 eat Starts In On Musslewhite Again With Its Trial-In-The-Press Tactics. Further Trial-In-The-Press Of Musslewhite Concerning Piper Alpha. Article In Scottish Press About Musslewhite's Fight With Texas State Bar. Article In Scottish Press Quoting Other American Lawyers About Same Matters DiscussedBy Musslewhite. 230. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. State Bar Officials Improperly Discuss In The Press TheirEfforts To Revoke Musslewhite's Probation. Discussion of the Efforts To Revoke Musslewhite's Probation in The National Press. Report of Evidence At Revocation Trial. Article About Smoot Of State Bar Testifying Musslewhite Did Not Contact Any Victims Or Their Families. Article About O'Quinn's "Wrist- Slap" Settlement With State Bar. ‘Article Re Settlement With O'Quinn Wherein Peterson Of ‘ State Bar Admits He Had No Case Based Upon Solicitation. Article Discussing "Wrist Slap" Settlement With Schwartz And How, Of All The Lawyers "Inves- tigated", The "Harshest Penalty" Was Imposed On Musslewhite. Article About Musslewhite's Work On The Agent Orange Case. J. Disbarment Petition Against Benton Musslewhite, Concerning Solicitation. Disbarment Petition Against John O'Quinn, Concerning Solicitation. Excerpts From Brochure Given By State Bar To Potential Claimants Showing Failure To Answer Telephone Calls Not Normally A Ground For Discipline. Excerpts From Offer Of Reprimand To Musslewhite From Committee 4-A And Rejection By Musslewhite. Excerpts From Musslewhite's Request For Change Of Venue From Committee 4-C, Because Of Leaks To Press. O'Quinn's Request For Change Of Venue From Committee 4-C, Because Of Leaks To Press And Hostility, With Affidavits. Musslewhite's Motion For Change Of Venue Ia The Trial Court Because Of Prejudicial Pre-trial Publicity And Motion To Interrogate Members Of Jury Panel Separately. The "Agreed Judgment" With State Bar, Agreed To By Musslewhite To Try To End A Decade Of Harrassment. Benton Musslewhite Affidavit Filed In State Court Of Appeals About All Events, But Particularly About Selective Prosecution And Harm Resulting From Denial Of Supersedeas. The Referral Letters And Power Of Attorney Demonstrating That Hartman- Agent Orange Case Was Properly Referred As Required By The "Referral Clause". Petition To Revoke Probation, With Exhibits, And Documents Pertaining To Service Of Same, Demonstrating Musslewhite Only Had Six Days Notice Of The Petition And Revocation Trial. U. Motion For Continuance Filed At Revocation Trial, Asserting Violation Of Musslewhite's Procedural And Substantive Due Process Rights, Because Of Inadequate Notice Of Trial. V. Plea and Abatement Filed At Revocation Trial, Requesting Abatement Until State Bar Complied With Sections 10-23, Art. 10, State Bar Rules Calling For Processing Through Grievance Committee And Trial By Jury. W. Rule 47 Motion Filed In Trial Court, Requesting Supersedeas Of Suspension Judgment. X. Papers Reflecting Requests By Musslewhite Of State Court Of Appeals To Expedite Appeal And Rejection By Court Of Appeals. Y. Rule 49(b) Motion Filed In State Court Of Appeals By Musslewhite, Requesting Such Court To Require Supersedeas. Z. Excerpts From Musslewhite's Third Petition For Mandamus, Concerning Supersedeas, Filed In State Supreme Court. AA-1.Excerpts From Trial Court Record Establishing How Trial Court Implicitly Found That Musslewhite Not A Threat To Clients Or Public Because Court Granted Deferral Of Suspension. AA-2.Excerpts From Musslewhite's Motion To Defer Suspension, Which Was Partially Granted. ‘ r((eCer_ eRe eee He HE He Ee HE & Ee GF FE AA-3.Excerpts From Brief Of State Bar In State Court Of Appeals, Demonstrating That State Bar Does Not Contend That Musslewhite Poses Threat Of Harm To Clients Or Public. BB-1.Gloria Chaplin's Affidavit, Establishing Harm To Clients Resulting From Improvident Suspension Of Musslewhite. BB.2.Ms. Chaplin's Trial Court Tes- timony To Same Effect. CC.Excerpts From Trial Court Uncontradicted Testimony Of Musslewhite and Newman Demonstrating That Musslewhite Objected To Running Of Ad And Sending Of Letter Re Piper Alpha Matter. DD.Articles Concerning Selective Prosecution, Including Comments About The State Supreme Court's Observations Re Selective Prosecution. EE.Excerpts From Briefs Filed By Musslewhite In State Court Of Appeals, Discussing Points Of Error, etc. | APPENDIX A No. 86-44452 (Consolidated) IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS V. 270TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (j (] (] (] {) (] (] {] BENTON MUSSLEWHITE {] {] NO. 87-24402 (Consolidated) IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS OF HARRIS COUNTY,G TEXAS V. 151ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT BENTON MUSSLEWHITE ORDER REVOKING PROBATION AND IMPOSING SUSPENSION On September 20, 1988, the Court called the Motion to Revoke Probation filed by the State Bar of Texas, for hearing. Petitioners in the above-styled, numbered, and consolidated disciplinary actions are the Grievance committees for 1 State Bar District Nos. 4-A and 4-C, State Bar of Texas. Respondent is Benton Musslewhite. The Court heard evidence on September 20, 1988, and on October 17 and 18, 1988. The Court, after considering the evidence, arguments of counsel, and authorities, is of the opinion and rules that the atten to Revoke Probation should be granted, that Respondent has committed professional misconduct and has violated the terms and conditions of the Court's Judgment signed on January 29, 1988, that Respondent's probation should be revoked, and that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. On November 7, 1988, the Court called the Motion to Set Hearing on Punishment; Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reconsider, Stay any Order of Suspension, If Any Pending, If Appeal is Necessary; _ Z_ mH mE EP Ee Ee Ee HE SF eS ee & and or Reconsideration and Rehearing, and the Motion for Permanent and/or Temporary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings, both motions being filed by Respondent, for hearing. The Court heard evidence from Respondent. The Court, after considering the evidence, arguments of counsel, and authorities, is of the opinion and rules that Respondent's motions for reconsideration, rehearing, stay or abatement of suspension pending appeal, and injunction, should be denied, and IT IS SO ORDERED. 1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent, Benton Musslewhite, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, beginning on January 31, 1989, and ending on January 31, 1992. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent be enjoined during the three (3) year suspension period from doing any of the following: (1) Practicing law (except where Respondent appears pro se); (2) Performing legal services for others; (3) Accepting fees directly or indirectly for legal services performed during the suspension; (4) appearing a counsel or in any representative capacity in any proceeding in any court or before any administrative body; (5) Holding himself out to others as an attorney or lawyer; or (6) Receiving or accepting, or agreeing with anyone to receive or accept, any fee, fee interest, or compensation in return for referring any person during the three (3) year suspension period to another attorney as a client or potential client. However, Respondent shall be permitted to receive fees for work performed or cases referred prior to the period of suspension, notwithstanding the fact that the fees = = may be received during the period of suspension. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall on or before December 31, 1988, do all of the following: (1) Mail written notice to all current clients, opposing counsel, and courts in which Respondent has pending matters as an attorney of record, notifying them of his there (3) year suspension and of his inability to continue to represent such clients; (2) Deliver all papers, files, monies or other property belonging to current clients to such’clients or to an attorney designated by any such clients or to their current attorneys in the case Or matter; (3) Refund to clients any unearned fees, monies or other property belonging to current clients to such clients or to an attorney designated by any such clients; and (4) File an affidavit with the General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas verifying that he has given written notice, delivered client property, and refunded unearned fees, all as provided herein. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall surrender his Texas Law License and permanent State Bar Card to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, on or before January 1, 1989. 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Court shall continue to employ the provisions of State Bar Rules art. X Sec. 33; that Hartley Hampton shall continue his appointment as Custodian for the purposes only of verifying Respondent's compliance with the provisions of Paragraph Three (3); and that the Court shall maintain and continue jurisdiction over Respondent's law practice. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hartley Hampton shall be compensated at a reasonable rate to be established by the ae ele SS SE ll eS sl —_= Court and to be paid out of available attorneys' fees accruing to Respondent, and Hartley Hampton shall file with this court a final fee application no later than February 1, 1989. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent furnish to Hartley Hampton within ten (10) days of this Order a list of all current clients of Respondent with the following information about each client: 22 Name, address, and telephone number of the client; (2) Full style of lawsuit to which the client is a party; (3) Name, address, and telephone number of all other attorneys representing the client. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall be subject to further order of the Court relating to Respondent's law practice, after notice and hearing. However, Respondent shall have the right, upon notice and hearing, to move the Court upon a showing that he has complied with the notice and other requirements of this Order, to terminate the Court's assumption of jurisdiction over Respondent's law practice. j 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs of Court incurred since the Court j signed the Judgment on January 29, 1988 7 shall be borne by Respondent. f i SIGNED: November 21, 1988 /S/Solomon Casseb JUDGE PRESIDING APPROVED: Office of General Counsel State Bar of Texas /s/ | Steven M. Smoot - First Assistant General Counsel / / State Bar of Texas s State Bar No. 18774300 P.O.Box 12487 Austin, Texas 78711 : 512/463-1381 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY; LS/ Theo W. Pinson Greenwood, Koby, Old, Pinson & Bussey j State Bar No. 160180000 1900 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019 713/523-2727 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT APPENDIX B - NO.86-44452 (Consolidated) THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS V. (] (] [] {] (] [] {] {] BENTON MUSSLEWHITE (] () IN THEDISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 270TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 87-24402 (Consolidated) THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS [ BENTON MUSSLEWHITE [ ORDER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 151ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Came on this day for consideration the Motion of Respondent pursuant to Rule 47 (a), (h), (i), (93) and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for Setting of Security and Suspension of Enforcement of the Judgment Revoking 1 Probation, Pending Appeal, and the Court being of the opinion that same is not meritorious, it is therefore AGREED, (sic), ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent's Motion is denied seeking the relief therein. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED THIS THE DAY OF Ite Im JANUARY, 1989. /S/ Soloman Casseb, Jr. JUDGE PRESIDING 4 APPENDIX C OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS NO. 01-89-00033-CV BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, Relator V. THE HONORABLE SOLOMON CASSEB, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE 270TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Respondent Original Proceeding On Motion For Leave To File For Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition, and Injunction e=2=22=2=2=============2==S=2225SS52========= Realator, Benton Musslewhite, asks this Court to order respondent, The Honorable Solomon Casseb, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to stay, pending appeal, relator's suspension from the practice of law. o _ Relator etceacrs the eneatibutionatio of various State Bar Rules relied upon on the underlying disciplinary proceeding but primarily contends that article X, section 24 of ‘the State Bar Rules, reprinted in appendix to Tex. Gov't Code, Title 2, Subtitle G (Vernon 1988), which prohibits a supersedeas or stay of an attorney's disciplinary suspension pending appeal, is unconsititutional. The Texas Supreme Court has the constitutional, legislative, and inherent authority to promulgate rules controlling the admission and disbarment of attorneys. Tex. Const. Art. II, sec. l; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. sccs. 81.024, 81.061 (Vernon 1988); Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395,398 fn. 1 (Tex. 1979); see also Comment, The Disbarments: Inherent or Staturoty?, 25 Baylor L. Rev. 368 (1973). The Texas Supreme Court in its order effective June ll, 1979, reprinted in 583-584 S.W.2d xxxiii-xxxv (Texas Cases), stated that it is the supreme court's duty “in the exercise of its inherent power to regulate and control the practice of law and to provide for the proper administration of justice." The supreme court in its preamble to the State Bar Rules- stated that "these Rules are adopted in aid of the Court's inherent power to regulate the practice of law." This Court, as an intermediate appellate court, is without authority to consider the constitutionality of rules promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. See Banales v.Jackson, 601 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Civ. App.--Beaumont), motion denied, 610 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. 1980). This Court also is without authority to stay the operation of a rule promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court. The question of the constitutionality of article X, section 24 and other State Bar Rules must be addressed to the Texas Supreme Court. The motion for leave to file a petition for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and injunction is overruled. PER CURIAM Frenel consists of Justices Warren, Dunn, and Hughes. Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P.90. Judgment rendered and opinion delivered January 19, 1989. True copy attest: /S/ Kathryn Cox Kathryn Cox Clerk of the Court 3 +. PAL = vm” a ee Ser APPENDIX D SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ~ P. O. BOX 12248 Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 Mary M. Wakefield, Clerk January 25, 1989 Mr. Benton Musslewhite 1535 Mellie Esperson Bldg. 815 Walker Avenue Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Steven M. Smoot First Assistant General Counsel State Bar of Texas P.O. Box 12487 Austin, TX 78711 RE: Case No. C-8321 STYLE: BENTON MUSSLEWHITE V. THE HONORABLE SOLOMON CASSEB, JUDGE Dear Counsel: Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted relator's motion to expedite hearing and overruled the motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition and/or injunction in the above case. cc: Respectfully yours, Mary M. Wakefield, Clerk By:/s/ Barry E. Pickett, Deputy Hon. Solomon Casseb, Jr. 127 East Travis Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Hon. Alice Oliver Trevathan Judge, 15lst District Court 1019 Congress, 16th Floor Houston, TX 77002 . - a an 4 } APPENDIX E SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, D.C. 20543 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. Clerk of Court February 2, 1989 Mr. Bob Hager Suite 103 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: Benton Musslewhite, v. State Bar of Texas and Solomon Casseb, Judge, Harris County, Texas- Application No. A-61l Dear Mr. Hager: _ The application for a stay and other relief pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case has been presented to Justice White, who on February 2, 1989 endorsed thereon the following: "Application is Denied 1 Byron R. White 2/2/89" Very truly yours, JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR., Clerk By Edward L. Turner, Jr. Assistant Clerk NOTE - FOR YOUR INFORMATION: A copy of this letter has been sent to all interested parties shown on the attached notification list. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, D.C. 20543 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. AREA CODE Clerk of the Court 479-3011 NOTIFICATION LIST Mr. Bob Hager Suite 103 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Mr. Benton Musslewhite 1535 Mellie Esperson 815 Walker Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Steve Smoot Asst. Attorney General State Bar Bldg., Capitol Sta. Austin, TX 78711 Mr. Solomon Casseb 270th Jud. Ct. of Harris Cty. 127 East Travis San Antonio, TX 78205 seer tai aa Me tad ait iid ei Ba ia ita AEs cae alin gat ellaal Vacanar. sit, ‘ 4 A fig / —— x a ‘ ee «ts OF TS os. wae ben ‘ APPENDIX I-2 THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL June 2, 1986 Excerpts from Allegations of Solicitation Army, Lawyers Feud Over Crash By Gary Taylor Special to The National Law Journal HOUSTON - Two prominent ‘local attorneys have declared war on the U.S. Army over its comments about solicitation of clients after last December's crash of an Arrow Air DC-8. The attorneys - Benton Musslewhite, a sole practitioner here, and John O'Quinn of O'Quinn & Associates - have criticized the Army for mentioning their names in discussing complaints from families of some soldiers killed in that disaster near Gander, Newfoundland. The Army has called the whole matter a misunderstanding. Both Messrs. Musslewhite and O'Quinn 1 noted that the Army has compiled its own list of firms specializing in aircraft matters, which was sent to potential plaintiffs - neither of the lawyers appears on the list - and that it has sent legal assistants to explain litigation procedures to the dead servicemen's families. The dispute probably will not go much further than the exchange of letters that already has occurred. But, in the process, the Army has claimed there were several solicitation problems stemming from the disaster, which claimed the lives of 248 servicemen. (NLJ. Feb 3.) "A number of attorneys have initiated contacts. There was a great deal of it at first," said Maj. John Meixell, deputy at the Office of the Judge Advocate General in Washington, D.C. me : Monitoring Situation So far, Major Meixell has not forwarded any complaints to local bar associations for investigation. But he said his office is maintaining a file on the problem and will continue to monitor the situation. The major was quick to emphasize that he has not been critical of Messrs. Musslewhite and O'Quinn and that he never initiated any discussions about the solicitation complaints filtering into his offie. But Major Meixell described one instance in which a man claiming to be a minister called a grieving family with an offer to lead them in a telephone prayer session. After the "“amens" were said, the alleged minister followed up with some legal referrals. In another case, a man contacted a family two days after the crash and asked to speak with the dead soldier. When told about the mishap, he identified himself as an investigator for a law firm and offered to help find attorneys to handle the litigation. Neither of those incidents involved Messrs. Musslewhite and O'Quinn, who represent three servicemen's families through referrals from veterans familiar with Mr. Musslewhite's work seeking awards for Vietnam servicemen injured by the defoliant Agent Orange. Responding to the press reports mentioning his name, Mr. Musslewhite fumed: “The Army should spend its time Cleaning up its own house by doing ~~ something about the planes on which it flies servicemen.. If my clients cannot. refer lawsuits to me, I may as well close up shop.” Added Mr.O'Quinn: "Even though the 4 ’ ew aa lCrrrrC oll me Ee Ee ee ae a +e a Army is not a defendant in the crash, they are not disinterested." Mr. Musslewhite predicted that the Army may eventually end up as a defendant in some suits, and he charged that it has overstepped its bounds in helping the families locate private’ - u counsel. »- Major Meixell also compiled a list of eight private firms boasting experiene in aircraft litigation, and forwarded that list to the families. When some other firms complained about their omission from the list, he said, his office reviewed their credentials and added three more firms. 'Overreacting' The existence of those lists prompted Mr.O'Quinn to charge that the Army itself is soliciting on behalf of the firms it has listed. Major Meixell said Mr. Musslewhite and Mr. O'Quinn are “overreacting” to published reports of his comments. After reading a letter from Mr. Musslewhite, the major said: "I'm at a loss as to why he's so upset. By having free legal-assistance attorneys available to the families we informed them of their rights. We checked with the American Bar Association and they had no referral list on airline crashes. The families have received a worthwhile service.” But Mr. Musslewhite remains unimpressed. "I just can't believed they jumped on us." he said. "They criticized all the lawyers who got cases without being on their list. I've spent $300,000 of my own money on the Agent Orange cases. I'm steamed about it." xe 3 Ce tesh > 3 wet as pets See ee = eft mal APPENDIX I-=3 The Texas Lawyer June ll, 1986 Vol. 2, No. ll Excerpts Bar investigating alleged solicitation By Ronda Baker The State Bar of Texas is investigating 17 Houston-area lawyers for alleged misconduct and one of the lawyers under scrutiny said he thinks most if not all of the allegations deal with improper solicitation of clients. Houston solo practitioner Benton Musslewhite said he received a letter from the bar asking him how clients were referred to him in the Agent Orange and Arrow Air,crashes and several other personai-injury cases during the last several years. Musslewhite calling the investigation a "witchhunt.” denied any wrongdoing and 1 said he had not heard from bar investigators since responding to that letter. "This is a broad-brush type of inguiry. They're asking me how I was hired in those cases. The day they make that (legitimate referrals) illegal, we can all shut down our offices and go home." Musslewhite represents three clients in the Gander, Newfoundland crash case with Houston lawyer John O'Quinn, who is reportedly under investigation by the same Houston grievance committee, and Miami lawyer Charles Lipcom. O'Quinn has said the bar is looking into the way he and Musslewhite signed up clients in that and the Agent Orange cases. Musslewhite and O'Quinn were on the nine-lawyer team that helped negotiate the establishment of a $180 million a settlement fund for victims with several chemical companies who manufactured the defoliant. The Army provided each victim's family with a legal assistant to help the family locate a lawyer and negotiate fees. Also provided was an Army prepared list of law firms experienced in aviation laws. The firms had been involved in negotiations with the Army to reduce fees by about 15 percent overall, a Pentagon spokesman has been quoted as saying. Musslewhite and the Houston lawfirm O'Quinn & Associates were not on the list. Maj. John Meixell of the Office of Judge Advocate General in Washington has said some non-listed lawyers hired in the case used representatives of veterans organizations to solicit cases Or left newspaper clippings about awards won for clients. But Meixell has not forwarded any complaints to local bar associations, he has said. Musslewhite said he sent Meixell an angry letter regarding Meixell's comments. He accused the Army of trying to get a client to change -lawyers after he had been hired to represent the client. "After the client had hired us, a lieutenant from the judge advocate general's office on a particular (Army) base approached him with a brochure about a lawyer on the list." Musslewhite said. He declined to name the lawyer but said it was someone he "was at odds with on the Agent Orange case and who did a very poor job of settling the case." Musslewhite accused the Army of using the list to suggest firms that | a would overlook what he says is a case arguably not covered by the Feris Doctrine, which exempts the military from being sued by servicemen. Musslewhite said O'Quinn has also been asked about the way he obtained clients in connection with the Delta crash. The two lawyers jointly represent one Delta client and Musslewhite said the bar has not asked them how they obtained that client. The San Antonio Light has reported that the bar is also looking into allegations that O'Quinn made improper ex parte communications with Texas Supreme Court Justice C. L. Ray while O'Quinn had a case pending before the court. The allegations were made in a public hearing of the Houston Committee on Judicial Affairs, which is investigating alleged misconduct by Supreme Court justices. O'Quinn's attorney, David Berg of Houston, said he had advised his client not to comment on the investigation which he said has been going on for six months. Berg resigned as chairman of the State Bar District 4-B grievance committee in Houston because of a bar policy, passed in April, prohibiting committee members from representing any lawyer under investigation for misconduct. The District 4=-C committee, whose chairman is Larry Dougherty, is carrying out the investigation of O'Quinn. Berg said. Musslewhite said he has informed the bar that most of his more than 2,000 Agent Orange clients were referred to him through Todd Ensign, general counsel for Citizen Soldier, a Manhattan veterans group. At least one a ~~» ~*~ {td 2 é - of the three Gander clients was. referred to him by the Brotherhood of Vietnam Veterans, affiliated with Citizen Soldier, he said. "I do not pay somebody to bring me cases." Musslewhite said. "If anybody says I do, I want to see the whites of their eyes in the courtroom." Musslewhite said the bar doesn't "have one single complaint from any client or potential client" about him. "We have one of these witchhunts about every 30 years.” He accused the bar of being defense- oriented and said the litigation crisis has set corporate defendants on a scheme to discourage plaintiffs. "Insurance companies, chemical companies and manufactories have become very frustrated the last three or four years with the legal process." Musslewhite said. "They think the best way to fight the litigation crisis is, No. 1, to intimidate plaintiff's lawyers by investigations so good lawyers will get out of the business.” aa eee «6EeelU lC he lC l(t KE lC eel lC lO TC ee Ole lCC ell Ul - a ory rf ¢ fi ; B ~ . ( ll —— llr Po De AE Se ga OE ES MP bik oe one PE APPENDIX I-4 Express News San Antonio’s guality newspaper-- largest circulation in South Texas TEXAS BAR TARGETS “AMBULANCE CHASERS’ Four Named in Allegations of Improper Solicitation By Jerome P. Curry Express News Staff Writer Four lawyers have been charges with improper solicitation of clients by the State Bar of Texas and six others are facing action after the State Bar launched a secret probe into what it calls an international ambulance- — chasing scandal. The State Bar investigation, carrying “the code name Masters of Disaster, is outlined in secret files obtained by-.the Express-News. One State Bar target, Benton Musslewhite of Houston and one of the best known personal injury lawyers in Texas, called the inguiry and subsequent disciplinary action « “vendetta by corporations and insurance companies.” Musslewhite already had been ordered by Judge Solomon Casseb of San Antonio to begin serving on Jan. 29 a three- year suspension from law practice in Texas. “Youll have to admit old Mussiewhite has tackled some seriously big | windmills,” said Richard “Racehorse” Haynes of Houston, one of the best-known criminal defense lawyers in Texas. “And a lot of people backing the Establishment were on the other side of the docket.” Both Musslewhite and Haynes were on a “hit list” of 10 Houston lawyers in connection with allegations of improper solicitation of clients from disasters in India and numerous Pacific and European countries, as well as the United States. — Both Haynes and sources at the State Bar said Haynes was cleared. The criminal lawyer’s appearance on the inguiry’s agenda was especially curious because, as Haynes noted, he does not practice personal injury law. Musslewhite said he was convinced that Haynes was on the list simply because he had represented him at one time in State Bar grievance proceedings. Haynes did not disagree. “Your sources are right,” the defense lawyer said. “I represented some of the attorneys at one time, and a witness. There was some suggestion of conflict. But I did not represent them in the same proceedings. There was nothing to it. They know that.” According to grievance committee files, the charges of improper seeking of clients involved cases as diverse as the continuing Agent Orange litigation 3 in behalf of Vietnam veterans to the sinking of the Ocean Ranger rig off Newfoundland in 1983. Settlements in the Agent Orange cases already total more than #180 million. A $22 million settlement was reached in behalf of injured and slain workers and their families in the Ocean Ranger case. State Bar discipline litigation, which can include disbarment or suspension, is pending in state district courts against lawyers John O’Quinn, Newton Schwartz and Doug Cherry. All except Cherry have been associated in some way with Musslewhite’s international practice in behalf of disaster victims. Musslewhite, O’Quinn. and Schwartz were all on the national legal steering committee in the Agent Orange cases. Musslewhite believes he is the 4 lightning rod for vengeance-seeking corporations. Their attorneys, he said, “see nothing amiss about corporate lawyers taking a few dollars to a disaster scene and having releases signed; but the same lawyers scream when other attorneys remind a corporation’s victims of their rights.” In one case memorandum, a State Bar investigator wrote of Musslewhite that he offered his services as an attorney to clients who had not sought his advice: “Specifically including but not limited to victims, survivors, next of Kin or surviving family members of the following disasters or accidents: ‘Agent Oranse’ litigation, Air Arrow DC-8 crash, AMC fire, Arctic Explorer sinking, Bhopal, India Union Carbide chemical spill, Challenger space shuttle explosion, ODC-3 cases, English S Global Marine cases, Global sinking, Sikorsky helicopter cases, the silicosis cases.” Musslewhite said it appeared to him he had been selected by the Establishment lawyers as the man to get. | » 2 — : — 9 — pes ' ~ —— . —_ 2% _— Pe tuk nue > : = Sua ee ee ee : Pe ten at oe ‘ k ’ ae : th ne eS Nis Leesa > “ee - = one ~ - - = APPENDIX I-12 (Excerpts from) Houston Chronicle May 28, 1987 Bar files 2nd suit against local laywer By Bonnie Britt The State Bar of Texas has filed a lawsuit seeking disciplinary action against Houston attorney Benton Musslewhite for allegedly using runners to solicit clients. The lawsuit filed ina state district court in Houston on Wednesday, asks that Musslewhite be "disbarred, suspended and reprimanded." It is the second lawsuit filed by the bar alleging improprieties by Musslewhite. Musslewhite could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any wrongdoing. The suit alleges that at least seven non-lawyers recommended employment of Musslewhite and attorney John M. O'Quinn to people who had not sought advice on hiring a lawyer. : Musslewhite and O'Quinn paid the runners for “recommending and securing" employment, according to the lawsuit. zt further Claims that fees were promised or paid to the runners. Such acts constitute professional misconduct under State Bar rules. “The accusations against me are untrue garbage," O'Quinn said. The lawsuit was filed by Steven Smoot, first assistant general counsel to the State Bar, and Tom Alexander, special prosecutor in the cases against Musslewhite, O'Quinn and Newton Schwartz. A lawsuit seeking disciplinary action was filed against Schwartz in January but has not yet to go to trial. | ee ¢ ee GE . ) Bm a EF wa Alexander said attorneys will ask that the latest case against Musslewhite be tried quickly, as is allowed in disciplinary actions. "This case is the result of months of investigation and could not have been filed without the help of Clyde Wilson," Alexander said. Wilson, a private investigator, has been working for the State Bar in the case without pay. The latest lawsuit also claims that Musslewhite arranged to split his attorney fees with O'Quinn in exchange for O'Quinn's financial backing of Musslewhite's practice. O'Quinn would not work on the case and took the money without the knowledge and consent of the clients, the suit says. State Bar rules label such acts as misconduct. APPENDIX I-13 The Houston Post May 29, 1987 By John Mecklin and Hope E. Paasch Allegation of jury tampering untrue, sources report Claims against lawyer in Monsanto case unraveling; confusion with other trial cited Widely reported allegations that prominent Houston attorney John M. O'Quinn was involved in jury tampering in a $107 million federal lawsuit appear untrue, many figures involved with that lawsuit agreed Thursday. The allegations, and a purported investigation of them by the FBI, were described in March by several Texas publications, including The Houston Post. The allegations concerned a federal lawsuit in Galveston that resulted in a $107 million jury verdict against the Monsanto Co. It was reported that FBI agents questioned jurors who returned the verdict to determine if attorneys tampered with or bribed the jury panel. One of the jurors said he told agents he was never approached by “attorneys in the case, and did not know that any other juror had been approached. ... Related to Alexander's investigation of O'Quinn is a state bar disciplinary action lawsuit filed Wednesday against Benton Musslewhite, a Houston attorney. Alexander was appointed by the bar to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by O'Quinn, Musslewhite and attorney Newton B. Schwartz. Wednesday's suit alleges Musslewhite and O'Quinn saninel seven people to solicit clients for their law practices, a violation of bar rules. Sameimimeeee He ee & we a me PUNE - The suit also claims O'Quinna financed Musslewhite's practice in exchange for a percentage of client fees on some cases, without the consent of the clients and without O'Quinn's taking any responsibility for the cases. Musslewhite said those charges are false. He acknowledged that O'Quinn has financed some of cases for him, but always has either worked or been expected to help out on those cases. APPENDIX I-14 (Excerpts from) The Houston Post May 23, 1987 Probe of Houston lawyers draws sharp criticism Charges of ‘runaway prosecutor' and ‘vigilante’ tactics follow investigation By Fred Bonavita and John Mecklin AUSTIN - An investigation of three Houston lawyers in connection with alleged. soliciting of clients has been sharply criticized for "vigilante" tactics and for being in the hands of a "runaway prosecutor,” The Houston Post has learned. In remarks to the executive committee of the State Bar of Texas Thursday, Justice Franklin Spears of the Texas Supreme Court said he was "raising the caution flag” over the handling of the probe by a Houston 1 grievance committee of the State Bar of Texas, including the use of a special prosecutor and investigator in the case. Jerry Lastelik of Dallas, chairman of the executive committee, charged the investigation was being handled by a "runaway prosecutor" who was employed by the Houston grievance committee and not by the state bar. Bill Whitehurst of Austin, out-going president of the state bar, agreed with Lastelik's characterization of the prosecutor and added that the decision by the Houston grievance committee to solicit private funds to pay for an investigation gives the appearance that "vigilante groups are financing the investigation." But Larry Doherty of Houston, chairman of the District 4C Grievance Committee, reacted indignantly to the Oooo _ bar officials' statements and countered that they are trying to "“stymie" the local probe of alleged wrongdoing by the three Houston lawyers. "This stinks!" Doherty said of the comments at the executive committee meeting. “This whole (expletive) thing stinks!" Tom Alexander, the special prosecutor hired to investigate the three attorneys, said Friday the criticism from Austin "kind of rankles”" him. « « e The Supreme Court, which approves state bar expenses, earlier this month refused to authorize paying Alexander up to $200,000 to act as a special counsel in the case. The court, in an 8-0 ruling not signed by Chief Justice John L. Hill, said there was no reason the state bar's general counsel could not handle the prosecution but that Alexander could serve without pay, if he wanted. Alécander was asked by the Houston grievance panel to look into allegations of wrongdoing against Houston attorneys Benton Musslewhite, John O'Quinn and Newton Schwartz. Alexander hired Investigator Clyde Wilson to probe the charges. Since then, the inquiry has gained widespread publicity, spinning off allegations concerning eight other attorneys and two state district judges from Houston. Those allegations have been referred to the Harris County district attorney's office and the state bar. One of judges, Family Court Judge Allen Daggett, already has criticized Wilson, asking “who appointed Mr. Wilson to be watchdog of the bar?" Wilson and Daggett are scheduled to meet next week over their differences. Doherty confirmed Friday that his grievance committee, by an 11-0 vote, decided Wednesday night to authorize Alexander to open a special bank account and solicit private contributions to pay Wilson's fees. Doherty called the move a “vote of confidence in Tom Alexander." In his comments to the executive committee, Spears said, “I'm only raising the caution flag to tell you that this thing can get sticky and it can get messy, and it can involve pitting the court against the bar. If that's what you want, that's it.” He pointed to recent newspaper accounts of comments by Alexander concerning the investigation and told the bar officials: "I get the feeling that Tom Alexander has taken over- that he's going to do what he wants to do, regardless of what's right or what the bar wants done or anybody else." The judge said the court was "getting pressure" from both sides in the case and said he does not want it to "blow up." Lastelik told the judge the state bar has no control over the situation Since it had not hired Alexander or Wilson. lLastelik said many people in Houston view Alexander as "a runaway prosecutor." Agreed Whitehurst: "We do have a runaway prosecutor down in Houston who is holding press conferences and... is trying this case in the papers in the name of the State Bar of Texas." He suggested Laselik meet with Doherty and Alexander and suggest the press conferences stop. On the issue of press coverage, Alexander said, “Certainly, it's no solution to the bar's problems that we keep the bar's problems in secrecy." He added, "The way I feel about that is the judges and lawyers ought to be subject to the scrutiny of the press. I've only answered the questions the press has asked me. An active, ‘investigative press is the strongest deterrence I know to misconduct by anybody. Whitehurst went on to tell the board: "The other matter that's coming up - and get ready - is this Clyde Wilson matter. That's getting totally out of hand." Pointing to the local grievance committee's decision to solicit funds “to pay Wilson's fees, Whitehurst said: "i¢*s geing to cone out - or the appearance will be - that vigilante groups are financing the investigation of lawyers for the grievance process." \ But Wilson said the decision to allow private financing of the investigation came about only after the Supreme Court cut off funding from the state bar. He said it appeared to him the Suprene Court's decision to cut off funding was an attempt to silence the investigation. "Well, we're not that easy to shut up," Wilson said. "If they think they're going to exert any influence on me, or cover anything up, they're sure barking at the wrong dog," Wilson said. ... Wilson said this week's comments from Austin only made him more determined to continue the investigation and he intends to talk to the press at his own pleasure. "No, I'll talk to them (reporters) whenever I damn well feel like it. I think the people of Harris County are entitled to know who the bad apples are." Doherty charged the hierarchy of the state bar has done its best to thwart the local probe of the three lawyers, including firing the first lawyer and investigator hired to probe them. He singled out Steve Peterson, general counsel of the state bar, for specific criticism. beteress*s office, declined comment. "Somebody is trying to cover up for some lawyers who have money enough," an irate Doherty said. "If I want these people in Austin interfering with our investigation, I'll ask for it!" Doherty said it was only because his grievance committee “reached out and sought outside counsel and an outside investigator" that it has been able to proceed as far as it has with the probe. "They need to leave us alone!" Doherty said. wie rr 10 2m Seealt, _— ott a ne pe — Rit Musalentdte Zaid he hed discovered that an Bn: abel mm ed ok ~ hey American law firma sent a copy of the judgment : Se to Scottish solicitors who iton tot ess. , haw . “er : “I think it’s a disgrace for this kind of thing to spoke in my wheels. It cpuld be professional » ent in the Pees. You kne dental | jealousy. Whatever it is I am not going to lower | BOOT OOS Laughing nee See | - gy “million dollar about how these lawyers are ing each other.” APPENDIX I-24 (Excerpts from) Glasgow Herald July 21, 1988 Rig claims put US courts to the test By ROS DAVIDSON THE widows and children of the Piper Alpha victims might face "serious problems" in securing compensation in US courts from the oil operators and designers. Their claims against American multi- nationals could be thrown out because the victims were not US citizens, according to Professor David Robertson, an authority on compensation and maritime law at the University of Texas. Yet New York lawyer Stuart Speiser is confident that the cases could be brought in Texas or Louisiana and 1 settled within two years. In the US Mr. Speiser represents most of the families of the 45 men killed in the 1986 Chinook helicopter crash. He disagrees with concerns that Piper Alpha's suits could be thrown out by emphasising that foreign oil rig victims have won in state courts on two occasions. Mr. Speiser handled both cases. He filed law suits in Texas and Louisiana for families of the 84 then killed when the Ocean Ranger rig capsized near Newfoundland in 1982. Some of the victims were British. In the second disaster, he won settlements in under two years for relatives of the 81 killed when the Glomar Java Sea capsized in the South China sea in 1983. of Piper Alpha litigation would be expensive, Texas maritime lawyer Robert Chaffin warns that both sides' fees ae BRE Ee FF SE He we ae we ee ee a } could exceed $lm in the state courts. But he says the award could top $1bn because punitive damages are influenced by the profitability of the companies sued. He also defends American lawyers' high contingency fees by noting that he once secured a settlement for the family of a man killed in the North Sea in the 1970s that was 15 times higher than the company offer. He concludes: "Cases should be brought where the widows and children can get the most money." Comment By Fetrowe: *6peiser was not himself involved in either one of these cases; his partner, Krause was. However, Musslewhite was on the plaintiffs’ committee with Krause in the Ocean Ranger litigation and stayed with the non-settling plaintiffs, while Krause bailed out with the settling plaintiffs. Musslewhite later secured substantially larger settlements for those who stayed with the case. As to the Global Java Sea, O'Quinn was lead counsel and the one who was primarily responsible for the settlement of that case. Apparently, Speiser for some reason resented Musslewhite and O'Quinn, because it was he who sent Musslewhite’ probation judgment to the Scottish press), NY jad urd VIIPPYD pue smOPIM IyD | PR 24) JO SaqNusE) JO BURISINO? suena 1ySn0Ig 9G PINOYS S25e)., |] PUH SEXI] UT SHINS Me] p>) PH [Sapp MIND a 4340 Aurdwos |} 's2se2 yrog papuey sasieds 4 yp wer y sdyYTIY SoU ¢] SEM TF sUOISRIZO OM) UO SHNOD 1815 UH Anson sous 2 | wt pay y wew # yo Apuny ayy | yeyy Sursiseyduss Xq yno umory 20) 1U2UINNIS EF PIINIIS 29U0 24 J 2qQ PjNOD suMs seydiy sadig peyp Sunou Aq $225 Aruadunuod ff yey) $u129U02 YM 59958SIP 244 yay —s wemiomy p07) "ysesd s2dosy2y yooury > ) $2jOIg “SUNNIDIA W 2Y *J2;SESIP PUOIIS 24) UY yy woursuad HEA DEED FO DtIOG ‘cag wi pur -AnopMaN svau pazisde 8 13] + pynos ty sadiy ‘par Fury weary ay) aq payry vay] aod ay) Jo a5n .. Mqusneyd,, 298 “3949 -moy *K182)809 24) OF SpUaWNTIY “mu0jiejd paxy © 51H 25NEI9q Me} | pue — own se ‘ssaudiziog Aq wy8nosq s2sed J82y 0} Prsnjas Ajaunnos sary . SPINOD JOIDPI) S$ Bosauy “Suter J2tdesip INOAR) SMEY IIIS 15H urowy jo saqunU y stn ayy ue apy OF “oyaiy SAN -UNOD ays “Bt? p MUIIdNG S() Oy) “soup rydne siunwa eydyy sodie “20MIN WE “YOSHAqUY PAE] 105 -$2j04,§ OF TuNpsorre “sur S/) FOU 213.8 SUITPA JY) DAR Y Ihe UNOIY 3g PFNOD speHONrU-nyner BRoUMUY SiNETe SHEP JOq] ‘S22UTHApP pur ssopriade pro ayt WiOs SLINOI ST) HE HONRSUddutOD Sursnc2; wi simyqgosd snot, 24) JO UIIPpY Pue sMOPM FEL avi wIe]D SIX), \ JS9} 9} 0} S}.INOD SF Jnd s 8861 1M 12 preys MerTD usages in —— ‘ c q bake —. = af S fh er Or ( REC od ee ont 244 APPENDIX I-36 ew . re ee Betract ‘from Glasgow Herald July 21, 1988 R. 2 ~B Claes wt &. f. Cov arty Fo 7 ‘ne By ROS DAVIDSO THE widows and children of the Piper Alpha victims might face "serious problems" in securing compensation in US courts from the oil operators and designers. Their claims against American multi- nationals could be thrown out because the victims were not US citizens, according to Professor David Robertson, an authority on~compensation and Maritime law at the University of Texas. Yet New York lawyer Stuart Speiser is conficent that the cases could be brought in fexee or Louisiana and settled within two years. In the US Mr. Speiser represents most of the BEST AVAILABLE COPY lech PF eae er ° o~ 7 Se, families of the 45 men killed in the 1986 Chinook helicopter crash. He disagrees with concerns that Piper Alpha's suits could be thrown out by emphasising that foreign oil rig victims have won in state courts on two occasions. Mr. Speiser handled both cases. He filed law suits in Texas and Louisiana for families of the 84 then killed when the Ocean Ranger rig capsized near Newfoundland in 1982. Some of the victims were British. saat bial = FF ee me * In the second disaster, he won DA RR eS settlements in under two years for relatives of the 81 killed when the Glomar Java Sea capsized in the South China sea in 1983.” Piper Alpha litigation would be expensivesg Texas maritime lawyer Robert Chaffin warns that both sides' fees bam could exnneet “SS iz the state courts. But he says the award could top sikw 2 ft 2 because punitive damages are influenced ig by the profitability of the companies + sued. He also defends American lawyers' high contingency fees by noting that he once secured a settlement for the family of a man killed in the North Sea in the 1970s that was 15 times higher than the company offer. He concludes: “Cases should be brought where the widows and children can get the most money." ® Speise, wl nel vimsel® ;atteolved wn eithen pre of tAaese Cases; Aes A pantoen 1Avre Wit, (Yowtuen, Pru tthudhite was ow Ae Poach AEE Canter Vee ae asd sal T vnand Oecehaw sinasen aPiganey A whe lib wy. fh TAP wae SOVt we f lam = hailed eu! aa se the teh . grare* Om wit beh (%e fata (AVw aeo ; ¥ PA , Secvaed ‘cv ostantiolly maeg*s seMlencea ll , “o wrt t ee rapreepree sent Pe Ti ee ac may OO “ ; edd ty the Cle das 24% Jeter fd P ecovuwle/ Awd ; Sear ' va oO Qwiwn wel A staves 304, wie art (3) pancarly Refpors 4% fem panewy! er that Case. 7 a fear nrealed ww . fie . - % tf. oo a ransen)ly , Spe ur? aw’ 0’ Quew~ a¢ “s , y " o/a r! : reuse ley are is iss pa aca CALS piGobs dres peels. APPENDIX I-25 (Excerpts from) THE TEXAS LAWYER August 1, 1988 Two Disasters Spawn Barratry Allegations Bar Sends Investigators to Scotland, Brownville BY ROBERT ELDER JR. Prompted by reports of lawyers improperly soliciting clients in the immediate aftermath of two recent disasters, the State Bar has sent an investigator to Brownsville and plans to dispatch its general counsel to Scotland in mid-August. And general counsel Steven Peterson will travel to Scotland to investigate the role of Benton Musslewhite and other Houston lawyers in lining up 1 clients from the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, Sales said July 27. Although neither the Bar nor Musslewhite's court-appointed overseer has talked with Musslewhite about his activities in Scotland, the Bar has been granted a Sept. 19 hearing in 270th District court in Houston to discuss Musslewhite's activities. The hearing, ordered by visiting state District Judge Solomon Casseb Jr., was requested by the Bar and Houston lawyer Hartley Hampton. Casseb appointed Hampton, name partner in Young & Hampton, to oversee Musslewhite's compliance with the three-month suspension of his law license - to begin Nov. 1 - and three year's probation. Musslewhite agreed to the settlement Feb. 1 in a disciplinary suit stemming from previous allegations of improper solicitation of clients, Musslewhite admitted no wrongdoing when he settled the case. Sales said the Bar would investigate reports from Scotland lawyers and news media that there was a "ring" of Houston-area lawyers soliciting clients from the July 6 oil rig explosion, which left 167 dead. "There is a suggestion that more lawyers from Houston are involved than there appeared to be at first blush,” Sales said July 22. Sales said information he received from Scottish lawyers shows that the Same group of lawyers allegedly soliciting Piper Alpha suits "seemingly has tentacles that may reach back to prior incidents in the U.K. North Sea area." 7 Sales, immediately after the Bar's executive committee meeting on South Padre Island July 22, said "time is of the essence” in the North Sea investigation. He said July 27 he would have preferred to send Peterson to Scotland the week of July 25, but the general counsel first must attend the American Bar Association's conference in Toronto before heading overseas. Hampton said he planned to take Musslewhite's deposition and begin his own investigation, which will “overlap” with the Bar's. Hampton said he had not had any contact with Musslewhite since news media reports of the Piper Alpha cases, although, he added, he had been on vacation, and missed telephone calls from Musslewhite. Hampton said press reports from Scotland and England about Musslewhite are “most discouraging and troubling.” Wire service reports from Scotland said Musslewhite on July 15 announced he would try to have suits stemming from the oil rig explosion heard in Texas. Depending on the evidence heard Sept. 19, Hampton said, either he or the Bar could move to have Musslewhite's license revoked. Sales said that if news reports from Scotland prove to be true, then "in retrospect" the Bar's settlement with Musslewhite was "too lenient." Sales said he has ordered Peterson and first assistant general counsel Steven Smoot to "marshall all the evidence we can" for the Sept. 19 hearing. If the evidence shows Musslewhite violated the terms of his suspension and probation, Sales said, you can bet your sweet bippy” the Bar will move to ask for punishment stronger than the Bar's settlement agreement. Under the terms of Judge Casseb's settlement order, Musslewhite cannot accept any new clients before the suspension starts Nov. l. ws | . MY Sh EK tt Ae APPENDIX I-26 (Excerpts from) THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL August 8, 1988 North Sea Visit Spurs Probe of Texas Lawyer BY GARY TAYLOR Special to The National Law Journal HOUSTON - Alarmed by news reports from the scene of a North Sea disaster, the State Bar of Texas has requested an "unusual" hearing to determine if attorney Benton Musslewhite has violated the settlement terms of his disciplinary dispute. At the Sept. 19 hearing, the bar intends to question Mr. Musslewhite about his activities in the aftermath of the July 6 Piper Alpha oil rig explosion that left 166 dead. "It's an unusual proceeding,” says Steven Smoot, the bar's first assistant general counsel. "I've never conducted 1 one before." Technically a motion for an oral hearing, the procedure is filed dns ieee of the bar's litigation against Mr. Musslewhite. That disciplinary action was settled in February, when Mr. Musslewhite agreed to a 90-day suspension of his law license. Mr. Smoot says the Houston solo practitioner also agreed to accept no new omplesaent by clients, but he can refer cases to other attorneys. Violation of the terms could mean a three-year suspension or even Gisbarment for the well-known litigator, who established his reputation representing Vietnam veterans in the Agent Orange cases. Neither Mr.Musslewhite nor his attorney, Ray Bass, an Austin solo practitioner, could be reached for comment. Both attorneys have said they ‘ believe the agreement allows Mr. Musslewhite to refer clients to other lawyers and then work with those lawyers on the cases. Mr. Musslewhite has been in Aberdeen, Scotland, according to the press reports that captured the state bar's attention. Those reports described a July 15 news conference during which Mr. Musslewhite said he would try to have Piper Alpha lawsuits tried in Texas courts, where juries give higher awards. But he also told reporters that he had redesigned his practice so his ontptnbion would not interfere with cases like these. "We want to hear his explanation," says Mr. Smoot. "The judgment speaks for itself. It says he shall accept no new employment by clients. We want to know who is on his team of lawyers." That team was described in Scottish newspaper ads and in letters allegedly drafted by Mr. Musslewhite to attorneys there. Those letters boast about the creation of a team of attorneys experienced in handling cases from mass disasters. At his press conference, Mr. Musslewhite told reporters he was meeting with Scottish solicitors to discuss the Piper Alpha litigation potential, which could total $1 billion worth of liability. He said he'd been invited to work on the cases by Glasgow attorneys. In subsequent newspaper interviews he “lashed out" at reports that he had been contacting families about possible cases. Mr. Musslewhite first attracted the Texas bar's disciplinary attention when it launched an investigation into solicitation of lawsuits and the use of TT ‘ runners - or non-lawyers - to enlist victims of disasters. He was one of several attorneys accused of the practice by the bar. (NLJ, 6-8-87.) The bar says it also wants to question Mr. Musslewhite about a lawsuit filed by him June 23 in Beaumont for an Agent Orange victim. Mr. Musslewhite has said that the Beaumont suit does not involve new clients. ieee ih WA ee ey eee oe ee co = } mm he H&S a _ APPENDIX I-27 Texas Lawyer September 26, 1988 ‘Excerpts from) MUSSLEWHITE DEFENDS OVERSEAS WORK Disciplined Lawyer Says _He Planned Referrals To O’Guinn By Richard Connelly Houston attorney Benton Musslewhite, prevented from taking new cases because of previous unethical solicitation charges, told a district judge Sept. 29 that he and an associate went a Scotland after a July 6 oil rig oun and hired a public relations representative, held 3 press conference, wrote to two dozen Scottish solicitors and sent a mass mailing to every victim or family involved in the explosion. But Musslewhite, a prominent solo practitioner, told visiting Judge Solomon Casseb, Jr. that he did not violate probation terms barring him since Feb. 1 from taking on new clients. Instead, he testified, he was plianning to refer any cases to Houston attorney John O’Quinn, another big-name personal injury lawyer facing unethical solicitation charges. "I told (O’Quinn], “You know I can’t accept cases, but would you accept referrals?’ and he said he would,” Musslewhite testified. Definite financial arrangenents vere not Giscussed, he said. Musslewhite also stressed that, even with the press conference and mailings to victinge, there was no direct solicitation of prospective clients. “I said at the press conference that we agreed that the victims should not Girectly hire American lawyers and we would only take cases through Scottish solicitors,” he said. Musslewhite, working with Houston 2 solo practitioner Kelly Newman, never did get any cases from the Piper Alpha disaster, which claimed 166 lives. But his actions have triggered a State Bar effort to revoke his probation, in a hearing scheduled to continue Oct. 17. Musslewhite had been charged with unethical solicitation and ignoring clients. He said at the time of the agreement that he was not guilty but accepted the terms in order “to get on with Chis] practice”. In addition to the Pipe Alpha activities, the Bar’s petition cited @ June 22 press conference in Washington, D.C., where Musslewhite announced his involvement in new Agent Orange litigation. But it is the activities in Scotland that most concern the Bar. First, eesistant general counsel Steven Smoot 3 showed « videotape of Scottish television news’ coverage of the July 1S press conference, which included a reporter’s references to “the Bhopal Gang” and said, “The U.S. lawyers deny they are ambulance chasers”. Coverage in the Scottish media grew worse after someone, probably another attorney, made reporters aware of Musslewhite’s disciplinary troubles in Texas, court documents said. News of the press conference reached the U.S. causing Bar officials to launch their investigation. Musslewhite,., who represented himself at the hearing, seid he did not get involved with the Piper Alphe case until three days after the explosion. He said he returned home from vacation and found letters from a Scottish solicitor he was working with on an unrelated case. ‘ : EEE ' Musslewhite said he called him about j that case and the solicitor “volunteered that he had two cases from the Piper Alpha case and I expressed the belief there was a good chance those cases could be heard in Texas,” Musslewhite said. He said he already possessed a ticket to England for an unrelated matter, but offered to move the trip up two days to meet with the Scottish solicitor. Musslewhite complained during the hearing that Hampton, whose fees he is paying as part of the probation agreement, was not acting objectively, as a special master should. “It’s a matter of ne paying for someone to investigate nme and prosecute me.” he said, adding the Bar should pay Hampton. APPENDIX I-28 The Houston Post October 18, 1988 ‘Excerpts from) MUSSLEWHITE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BEGINS By Brenda Sapino An attorney for the state bar, which has alleged Houston personal injury lawyer Benton Musslewhite violated his disciplinary probation, said Monday he has no evidence Musslewhite directly contacted accident victims in Scotland. Steven Smoot, legal counsel for the State Bar of Texas, said he has no evidence that Musslewhite ever contacted any victim or relative of a victim of the July 6 Piper Alpha oil platform rig explosion in the North Sea. Smoot testified Monday during a hearing on the bar’s request for visiting state District Judge Solomon Casseb Jr. to revoke Musslewhite’s disciplinary probation, an action that could prevent Musslewhite from practicing law for longer than a 90-day suspension set to begin Nov. 1. The bar alleges that Musslewhite may have violated the terms of his probation when he went to Scotland to meet with solicitors. Musslewhite said he had an arrangement to refer any litigation to Houston attorney John O’Quinn. j APPENDIX I-29 Houston Post July 11, 1989 (Excerpt from) LAWYER RECEIVES REPRIMAND IN SETTLEMENT OF STATE BAR SUIT By John Mecklin | Prominent personal-injury attorney John M. O'Quinn received a public reprimand but no serious sanctions in the settlement of a widely publicized disciplinary lawsuit filed against him by the State Bar of Texas. In an emotional interview Monday O'Quinn said he had been unfairly "dragged through the mud" during the bar's investigation and lawsuit, which were the subject of numerous news reports over a~period of months. "I'd like to say this: I think it was wrong for them (the bar and its attorneys) to try me in the press. I think a lot of things were said about 1 me that were false -- not think, I know (they were false)". But the settlement's relatively mild disciplinary action contrasts sharply with early allegations by an attorney and a private investigator hired by the bar of widespread wrongdoing by O'Quinn. From the start, the bar's investigation, which began in 1986, was surrounded by controversy. The bar's board of directors took the unusual step of hiring Tom Alexander, also a prominent civil attorney in Houston, as a special prosecutor. Alexander inturn hired private investigator Clyde Wilson to pursue the investigation. But then the State Supreme Court, which controls the bar's budget, refused to pay Alexander's $250,000 fee because there was no precedent for it. 2 . . 2 } 5 ‘ And was details of Wilson's investigation began to leak into the press, some disgruntled bar officials publicly referred to Alexander as a "runaway prosecutor." They charged Alexander's investigation wa'> being backed "vigilante" groups seeking to punish a prominent personal injury lawyer. Alexander said, “I sincerely hope that this public reprimand and probation will deter others from the same sort of activity." Still, Alexander added, "It's a wrist-slap." David Berg, one in a team of attorneys who represented. O'Quinn, retorted. "To the extent that the case was tried in the press by Tom Alexander, I think he (O'Quinn) has been punished quite enough, thank you." Most recently, O'Quinn won a judgment of at least $600 million from Tenneco for an Ohio gas producer. Among numerous other multimillion- dollar cases, O'Quinn also was a member of the legal team that negotiated a $250 million settlement of the Agent Orange suit on behalf of Vietnam veterans. APPENDIX I-30 Texas Lawyer July 190, 1969 ‘Excerpts from) O’OGUINN BATTLES NEARING AN END Truce With Bar Called a Matter of * Economics *_ By Mark Ballard and Robert Elder Jr The legal cloud over John M. O’ Guinn began evaporating when the ncted Houston trial lawyer accepted ” proposed settlement of his disbarment suit and the key witness in @ jury tampering case recanted his allegations. O’Guinn will not lose one day of practice under the deal, whach hed not been finalized by press time on July 6&6. But the Stete Bar of Texas board of directors on June 29 reportedly rebuked ite general counsel, Steven D. a Peterson, for his handlinsc of Texas’ most celebrated disbarment suit. Two members of the Bar’s Grievance Committee 4-E said Peterson recommended a light penalty for O’Guinn because the Bar could not afford to fight O’Guinn’s team of renowned lawyers, an outcome many predicted when the general counsel took over from @ special prosecutor. The Bar, which last year defeated O’Guinn’s constitutional challenge of the Bar’s anti~barratry rules, clained in the disciplinary suit that O’Guinn hecg hired eight “runners” to solicit more than 100 personal injury clients. Sometimes the runners dressed like priests or paramedics and slipped into hospitals to give prospective clients « brochure that outlined O’Guinn’s most famous verdicts, according to court records. The chairman of the grievance Committee thet agreed to settle the ~ 7 - case with O’Guinn, Haerry A. “Red” Loftus, confirmed July 5S that the deal - subject to court approval - calls for O’Guinn to receive two years’ probation and perform 100 hours of community service. Loftus, #® name partner in Houston’s Abramowitz 6&6 Loftus, stepped down July 1 a8 grievance committee chairman. But one of O’Guinn’s defense lawyers, who~— asked not to be identified, said he interprets the penalty to mean that probation lasts only until the 100 hours of community service is completed, and O’Guinn has two years to complete it. Saying that Bar rules forbic him from commenting on grievance committee deliberations, Loftus confirmed the panel was motivated in part by lack of evidence and escalating costs. Two other members of the grievance a ee ee er mee ee ee ee ree eee ~ committee, both speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documentary evidence against O’Guinn contained what one member called “significant gaps.” Plus, several key witnesses could no longer be located, the committee member said. When Loftus presented the final draft of the settlement at its June 22 meeting, the grievance committee considered Peterson’s assessment that the O’Guinn case would be difficult to win, the sources said. “We were made to feel that we were somewhat handicapped in making the case against this guy (O’Guinn]),.” said one committee member. Peterson had told the committee that C’Ouinn had spent about 63 million on the case and that the Bar had spent up to 870,000, the two sources saic. “Steve told us, “I’1ll do what you @ll say but this guy can outspend the SG — —_EE ia set ae lOrETlUPrlUCU TLlUCUCrreDlUClC rlUCU erlCU rlCU lO ean -_ — Bar and I’m facing (five] high-powered attorneys,” the panelist said. “The bottom line is that it just came down to economics, agreed the other grievance committee member. “We more or less compromised. And rather than risk losing the whole case, at least with a probated sentence we could hold it over his head for a while.” The fallout over the settlement also played a large part in an unusual display of dissatisfaction with Peterson by Bar leaders. At its June 29 meeting, the Bar’s board of directors voted to give its top two executives, Peterson and executive Director Larry K. Montgomery, relatively modest raises. And at least two of the directors who voted for the raise said the issue Ss upsetting some directors was the O’Quinn case and Peterason’s role in the settlement. “It’s got a lot to do with it,” said one member who approved the raise. “In effect, O’Quinn has beaten the system,” said William Key Wilde, who chaired the Bar committee that oversees the general counsel’s office and initiated the O’Quinn prosecution in late 19866. At the time, Wilde, a Houston partner at Bracewell & Patterson, favored hiring a special prosecutor to handle the case. “This (the settlement] was the sort of thing that we suspected would have happened all along”, Wilde said July 6. “We never felt Steve Petercen was a match for the lecal team O’Quinn was able to put together.” O’Guinn got a better deal than Peterson offered in January 1987, 6 rr Ta a a oe oT Tr oe llr CC wa Steel ET ae when the Bar was considering whether to hire a special prosecutor. Wilde said. At that time, O’GQuinn had agreed to a public reprimand and to testify against Houston solo practitioners Benton Musslewhite and Newton 8B. Schwartz, two other lawyers then facing disciplinary suits, Wilde said. But. the grievance committee, which had different members then, refused to approve that deal, he said. “It seems to me ironic that Steve Peterson would say it was too expensive when Tom Alexander agreed to do this for free.” Wilde said. Alexander, a name partner at Alexander & McEvily of Houston, supervised the case for 190 months before the Bar board of directors fired him as special prosecutor in October 1987. Peterson retook control of the case at that point. Not surprisingly, Alexander also was 7 critical of the pending deal in O’Quinn’s case. “To say that the State Bar cannot afford to prosecute John O’Quinn is to say the State Bar is pretty weak and maybe it does need legislative supervision.” Alexander said July S. The settlement “really makes a mockery of the State Bar rules.” ! =— fs a APPENDIX I-31 Texas Lawyer August 14¢, 1989 (Excerpts from) SCHWARTZ ACCEPTS 2-MONTH SUSPENSION IN SETTLEMENT By Richard Connelly Houston solo practitioner Newton Schwartz has accepted a two-month suspension and a public reprimand to end the disciplinary Suit brought against him by the State Bar, court documents show. Schwartz, s prominent personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyer accused of mishandling client funds and improperly financing litigation, finishes his suspension Aug. 30. The order containing the agreement was signed by visiting Judge Solomon Casseb of San Antonio on June 27. The charges against Schwartz came 1 YV- cut of the high-profile “Masters of Disaster” investigation begun by the Bar in 1986. Although the investigation centered on personal injury lawyers accused ef hiring runners to solicit cases from accident victims, Schwartz however was never charged with improper solicitation. With Schwartz’ settlement, the three disciplinaryvy suits filed in the investigation have come to an end. Houston attorney John O’Quinn’s case garnered the most attention, because of his string of multi-million dollar verdicts, his star-studded defense team and his failed constitutional challenge to the Bar’s anti- solicitation rules. O’Quinn, named partner in Houston’s O’Quinn, Kerensky & McAninch, settied his suit June 30 by. agreeing to a public reprimand, 100 hours of community service and reimbursement of $38,000 to the State 2 Bar for investigatory expenses. The harshest penalty went to Houston solo practitioner Benton Musslewhite, like O’Quinn, accused of hiring runners. Musslewhite, who was also accused of fee-sharing and ignoring cases, initially settled his case Feb. 1, 1988, with a 90-day suspension to begin in November of that year. He was to take ‘on ‘no new clients before the suspension started, according to the agreement. Nine months later, however, Casseb ruled Musslewhite had violated his parole and ordered three-year suspension. The suspension has begun, although Musslewhite is fighting the ruling in federal court. Casseb’a order came. after Musslewhite traveled to Scotland in the wake of an cil rig disaster. Musslewhite claimed he was conferring with Scottish solicitors and planned to 3 refer all cases to O’GQuinn, but Bar officials said his actions violated his parole condition barring new business. Schwartz, Musslewhite and O’Guinn were menbers of the pliseintififs’ management committee in the Agent Orange litigation of the mid-1960s. Schwartz and O’OQuinn also were among the plaintiffs’ lawyers who helped finance the massive, multi-district case that blamed chemical manufacturers for the ailments suffered by Vietnasm veterans who came in contect with the toxic defoliant. . nlp - NS eS ee ee a a we Te ere a — SS —- Sl ele! ~s - — wet”? | APPENDIX I-32 Houston Post May 10, 1984 ‘Excerpts from) CITY LAWYER HERO IN AGENT ORANGE The document that changed Houston lawyer, Benton Musslewhite’s life-- and now will affect the lives of possibly as many as 100,000 Vietnan veterans a8 a result -- was @ meno concerning sa i965 meeting between representatives of seven chemical companies. The gist of the memo, Musslewhite reasons, was that those seven chemical companies had realized the defoliant Agent Orange they were producing for the U.S. government contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances known to man. What caught his attention was that those representatives decided not to |i i a a tell the Pentagon what they had learned. As @ result, seven more years passed before the government halted the Spraying of Vietnamese jungles with millions of gallons of the chemical. “I just said, ‘I can’t believe it. I can’t believe anyone would do this, would allow that to continue knowing what they did,” and I just couldn’t say no once I knew that.” he said. Musslewhite called the lawyer for the veterans group Citizen Soldier in New York City back and agreed to accept calls from veterans who believed the illnesses they suffered stemmed from Agent Orange. On Sunday, Musslewhite and seven other lawyers acting ae a master committee negotiated the largest settlement in a products liability case in this nation’s history -- one that could bring those veterans as much as 2 S750 million. Without Musslewhite, though, sources close to those negotiations and even some committee members readily concede, those veterans might never have gotten a penny. “Musslewhite has definitely vceen one of the most active and most involved in the case.” said Houston lawyer John O’ Quinn, another member of the committee. “Benton has persevered. He all along has been one of the three that has kept the ship afloat,” conceded Newton Schwartz, the other Texas attorney on the panel. “That has been his role through thick and thin.” It was Musslewhite who organized 1,500 veterans -- including almost 400 Texans -- and filed -their claims. It was Musslewhite who argued strategy with a group of New York and Rhode Island lawyers originally assigned to 3 monitor claims from across the nation. It was Musslewhite who recruited O’Quinn and Sitdaiaeee and the money they had available to the eight-member panel when the original group of New England lawyers almost gave up. O’GQuinn -- by his own estimate-- has contributed #6300,900 to 8s400,000 excluding his own time. Schwartz says he has tossed in #6150,000 cash and up to a quarter of amillion in time and research. “Benton has probably worked on this himself for 5,000 ofr 6,000 hours, almost steady on it for four years,” Schwartz said. Musslewhite estimates $his own contribution at almost a quarter of a million dollars -- so much that rent on his own law office in the 609 Fannin Building is “a few months behind,” he says. He doesn’t own a home and is still 4 $3 million in debt by his own estimate. Benton Musslewhite was hardly the man to take on bint massive chemical companies or the federal government. He holds law degrees from Southern Methodist University and Georgetown University and was licensed in April 195¢. He worked in a Dallas firm, then two years for judge advocate general’s corps at the Pentagon and later practiced in Lufkin with his father. As an active Democrat at one tine, he lost a congressional seat in 1962 by 41 votes after being tagged a liberal. He lost the same seat by 11,000 votes in a second outing four years later. Sen. Ralph Yarborough then made him his legislative assistant. But when Yarborough left office two years later, Musslewhite moved to Houston and began pursuing real estate ventures and taking personal injury cases. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0415%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.