John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00007-CV
John Doe, Appellant
v.
Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas; Commission for Lawyer Discipline; and
Linda Acevedo, in her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the
State Bar of Texas, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-14-001635, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Doe1 appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his declaratory judgment action
against the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and
Linda Acevedo, in her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas
(collectively, the State Bar Defendants). Doe sought declarations that the State Bar Defendants were
not prohibited from disclosing to Doe, as a grievance complainant, Acevedo’s recommendation to
the summary disposition panel concerning Doe’s grievance against an attorney, that he was entitled
to a copy of the recommendation, and that Acevedo had acted without authority in refusing to
provide him a copy. The State Bar Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
which the trial court granted. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s order.
1
John Doe is a pseudonym for a person who filed a grievance against a Texas attorney.
BACKGROUND
Doe filed a grievance against an attorney alleging violations of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure. See Tex. Rules Disciplinary P. R. 1.06(R), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code,
tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A-1 (defining “grievance” as “a written statement, from whatever source,
apparently intended to allege Professional Misconduct by a lawyer, or lawyer Disability, or both,
received by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel”). Acevedo made a threshold determination
to classify the grievance as a “complaint” and began an investigation into whether “just cause”
existed. See id. R. 1.06(G) (defining “complaint” as written matter alleging conduct that constitutes
professional misconduct and/or disability), (S) (defining “inquiry” as written matter alleging conduct
that, even if true, does not constitute professional misconduct or attorney disability, or both), (U)
(defining “just cause” in relevant part as “such cause as is found to exist upon a reasonable inquiry
that would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an attorney . . . has
committed an act or acts of Professional Misconduct requiring that a Sanction be imposed . . . .”),
R. 2.10 (requiring Chief Disciplinary Counsel to examine grievances and classify as inquiry or
complaint). Grievances classified as complaints are sent to the respondent attorney with notice to
provide a written response to the allegations within thirty days. See id. R. 2.10.
After receiving the attorney’s response and a series of replies and responses, Acevedo
investigated the complaint and notified Doe that she did not find just cause and would refer the
complaint to the summary disposition panel. See id. R. 1.06 (CC) (defining summary disposition
panel as panel of grievance committee that determines whether complaint should proceed or be
dismissed based on absence of evidence of just cause after reasonable investigation by Chief
2
Disciplinary Counsel). Acevedo placed the complaint on the docket of the summary disposition
panel. See id. R. 2.13 (requiring Chief Disciplinary Counsel, upon determination that just cause does
not exist, to place complaint on docket of summary disposition panel).
At the summary disposition panel docket, Acevedo presented the complaint, and the
panel dismissed the complaint.2 See id. R. 2.13 (requiring Chief Disciplinary Counsel to present at
summary disposition panel docket complaint “together with any information, documents, evidence,
and argument deemed necessary and appropriate by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, without the
presence of the Complainant or Respondent” and providing that summary disposition panel shall
determine whether complaint should be dismissed or proceed). Doe asked for a copy of Acevedo’s
recommendation to the summary disposition panel. Acevedo denied Doe’s request, citing the
confidentiality provisions of Rule 2.16. See id. R. 2.16 (“All members of the staff of the Office of
Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Committees, and Commission shall
maintain as confidential all Disciplinary Proceedings and associated records [with exceptions not
relevant to this appeal].”). Doe filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants
seeking declarations that he is entitled to receive a copy of Acevedo’s recommendation, that
Rule 2.16 does not apply to him as complainant and does not prohibit him from receiving or the State
Bar Defendants from providing him a copy of Acevedo’s recommendation, and that Acevedo acted
without authority in denying his request for a copy of the recommendation. Doe also sought an order
requiring Acevedo to provide a copy of her recommendation to him.
2
There is no appeal of the panel’s decision to dismiss. Tex. Rules Disciplinary P. R. 2.13.
3
The State Bar Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They
asserted that they are protected by sovereign and statutory immunity, that Doe had alleged no actual
injury and lacked standing, that Doe’s claims were moot, and that the trial court could not intervene
in the disciplinary process, which the Texas Supreme Court has authority to regulate. Following a
hearing, the trial court granted the State Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doe then filed
this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
In their motion to dismiss, the State Bar Defendants argued that the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that
we review de novo. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
The ultimate inquiry is whether the particular facts presented affirmatively demonstrate a
claim within the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Bacon v. Texas Historical Comm’n,
411 S.W.3d 161, 171 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.). Among the grounds that the State Bar
Defendants asserted for the trial court’s lack of subjection matter jurisdiction was that Doe’s claims
are barred by sovereign immunity.3 Sovereign immunity protects the State of Texas and its agencies
from lawsuits, including suits for declaratory or injunctive relief, unless immunity has been expressly
waived. Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 621–22 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Harris
3
The State Bar Defendants did not assert sovereign immunity in their motion to dismiss but
did include it as a ground for dismissal in their argument at the hearing on the motion. Doe does not
contend that they have waived this argument, and the parties join issue on sovereign immunity on
appeal. In any event, because sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction, a party may
raise it for the first time on appeal. Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 95–96 (Tex. 2012);
Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex. 1996).
4
Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004); Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n
v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex. 2002). The State Bar is a government agency that is entitled
to the protection afforded by sovereign immunity. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.011(a) (describing
State Bar as administrative agency of judicial department of government). As a standing committee
of the State Bar, the Commission is likewise protected by sovereign immunity. See Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 81.076(b) (Commission is standing committee of State Bar); Willie v. Commission for Lawyer
Discipline, No. 14-10-00900-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5684, at *11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] July 26, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (Commission entitled to sovereign immunity unless
waived). As a government official, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel may be a proper party to a suit
that alleges, and ultimately proves, that she failed to perform a purely ministerial act or acted without
legal authority and thus falls within the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. See Tex. Gov’t
Code § 81.076(g) (authorizing Commission for Lawyer Discipline, with advice and consent of State
Bar Board of Directors, to select Chief Disciplinary Counsel to serve as administrator of State Bar’s
grievance procedure); Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 621; City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372
(Tex. 2009) (discussing ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity).
There is no general right to sue a state agency for a declaration of rights, and although
the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) waives immunity for certain claims, it is not a
general waiver of immunity. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.006(b); Texas Parks & Wildlife
Dep’t v. Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011). It does not enlarge a trial court’s
jurisdiction, and a request for declaratory relief does not alter the underlying nature of a suit.
Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 370; IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855. When sovereign immunity bars a claim
5
against a governmental entity, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d
at 224.
DISCUSSION
In his first issue, Doe acknowledges that sovereign immunity bars his claims except
to the extent immunity is expressly waived by the legislature. Doe contends, however, that his
claims fall within exceptions allowing actions that (1) challenge the validity of a statute and
(2) assert ultra vires claims against a state officer. See Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 622 (state may be
proper party to declaratory judgment action that challenges validity of statute); Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d
at 372 (suits against governmental officials alleging, and ultimately proving, that they acted without
legal authority or failed to perform purely ministerial act fall within ultra vires exception to
governmental immunity). We address each exception in turn.
Ultra Vires Claims
Doe contends that his claims against Acevedo are not barred by sovereign immunity
because they fall within the exception for ultra vires claims against a state official. See Heinrich,
284 S.W.3d at 372. For the ultra vires exception to immunity to apply, a plaintiff must prove that
the state actor either failed to perform a ministerial task or acted without legal authority.
Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 587 (Tex. 2015); Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d
at 372. Doe argues that Acevedo acted ultra vires in denying his request for a copy of her
recommendation to the summary disposition panel based on a misinterpretation of Rule 2.16. He
does not contend that Acevedo failed to perform a purely ministerial act but complains that because
6
Rule 2.16 does not expressly prohibit disclosure of the recommendation to a complainant, Acevedo
acted without legal authority in withholding it. To determine whether Doe has asserted a valid ultra
vires claim that invokes the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, we construe the provisions of
Rule 2.16 that define the scope of Acevedo’s legal authority, apply them to the facts that Doe has
alleged, and ascertain whether those facts constitute acts beyond Acevedo’s legal authority. See
City of New Braunfels v. Tovar, 463 S.W.3d 913, 919 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (citing
Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 701–02 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011,
no pet.)).
Under Rule 2.16, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Board of Disciplinary
Appeals, Committees, and Commission are required to “maintain as confidential all Disciplinary
Proceedings and associated records.” See Tex. Rules Disciplinary P. R. 2.16. Thus, the
plain language of the rule requires confidentiality. See Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp.,
319 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tex. 2010) (we apply plain meaning of text unless different meaning is
supplied by legislative definition or is apparent from context or unless plain meaning leads to absurd
results); Galbraith Eng’g Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha, 290 S.W.3d 863, 867 (Tex. 2009) (our
primary concern is express statutory language). The rule includes several exceptions to
confidentiality not relevant to this appeal, but it does not include an exception for disclosure to
complainants. Doe’s argument that Acevedo acted without authority in withholding a copy of her
recommendation inverts the ultra vires exception. For Acevedo to make an exception for
complainants when no such exception is contained in Rule 2.16 would be to act without legal
authority, not the other way around, as Doe argues. We conclude that Acevedo acted with authority
7
of law in withholding her recommendation from Doe and that the ultra vires exception is
inapplicable to her. See Tovar, 463 S.W.3d at 919; Emmett, 459 S.W.3d at 589 (where city
employee acted in accordance with city ordinance, he acted with authority of law, and ultra vires
exception did not apply to him).
Challenge to Rule 2.16
As for the other State Bar Defendants, Doe challenges Rule 2.16 in two interrelated
arguments. He sought a declaration that as a matter of law Rule 2.16 does not apply to him as
complainant and that it does not prohibit him from receiving and the State Bar Defendants providing
to him Acevedo’s recommendation prior to presenting that recommendation to the summary
disposition panel. Doe argues that this request for an interpretation of Rule 2.16 falls within the
exception allowing actions against the state that challenge the validity of a statute. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.006(b) (requiring joinder of municipality in challenge to municipal
ordinance or franchise); Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 622 & n.3 (interpreting section 37.006(b) as requiring
joinder of state in challenge to statute); O’Quinn v. State Bar of Texas, 763 S.W.2d 397, 399
(Tex.1998) (concluding disciplinary rules should be treated like statutes). On its face, this request
for declaratory relief appears to be a request for statutory interpretation that would fall within the
exception, allowing suit against the Board and the Commission. See Texas Lottery Comm’n v. First
State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2010) (UDJA contemplates that
governmental entities may be joined in suits to construe legislative pronouncements, both those
seeking invalidation and those involving interpretation) (citing Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper,
893 S.W.2d 432, 433, 446 (Tex. 1994)).
8
Even if we were to conclude that Doe’s claims fall within this exception to sovereign
immunity, however, Doe has failed to allege a legally cognizable interest in obtaining a copy of
Acevedo’s recommendation. Doe argues that he “properly alleged his specific and legally
cognizable interest affected by the State Bar Defendants’ actions.” However, Doe has asserted no
statutory or other basis for his contention that he is entitled to a copy of Acevedo’s recommendation.
He cites section 81.072 of the Government Code, which requires the Texas Supreme Court to
establish standards and procedures that provide for a full explanation to each complainant on
dismissal of a complaint. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.072(b)(2). Yet he points us to no statute or rule
requiring or even authorizing the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to provide the complainant with a copy
of the recommendation to the summary disposition panel. It is undisputed that Rule 2.16 does not
require disclosure, and we are unpersuaded by Doe’s argument that he is somehow entitled to
disclosure merely because the confidentiality rule does not expressly prohibit disclosure
to complainants.
Doe claims that Acevedo’s denial of his request for a copy of her recommendation
has prevented him from being able to review Acevedo’s finding and evaluate how his complaint
failed to meet the standard of just cause, “render[ing] futile any effort to correct [his] grievance in
a new filing.” But he has cited to no authority, and we know of none, for the proposition that Doe
has a statutory or common law cause of action encompassing the legal right to demand
documentation from the State Bar Defendants in order to assist him in preparing a potential future
complaint against an attorney. Even if we were to construe the confidentiality provision of Rule 2.16
as inapplicable to Doe, he has not alleged, nor can he allege, any legal basis supporting his right to
9
access or view Acevedo’s recommendation to the summary disposition panel. Therefore Doe has
not pleaded a legally cognizable claim under any statute, rule, or common law cause of action
capable of conferring subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court.4 See A.G. Edwards & Sons,
Inc. v. Beyer, 235 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2007) (without statutorily required written agreement, joint
owner had no cognizable claim to sums in joint tenant with right of survivorship account); Austin
v. HealthTrust, Inc., 967 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Tex. 1998) (plaintiff failed to state cognizable claim
under Texas common law, which did not recognize private whistleblower cause of action); King
v. Moores, No. 13-05-00694-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6083, at *12–14 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi July 13, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming trial court’s grant of plea to jurisdiction on
ground plaintiff failed to state cognizable claim under applicable state law); cf. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d
at 437 (involving class action plaintiffs who sought declaration that compulsory school attendance
law did not apply to home schooling and who alleged constitutional and civil rights violations
resulting from prosecutions and threatened prosecutions).
We therefore conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and
properly granted the State Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Emmett, 459 S.W.3d at 589;
HealthTrust, 967 S.W.2d at 401. We overrule Doe’s first issue. Because this issue is dispositive,
we do not reach Doe’s second issue, in which he argues that he had standing because he alleged
actual harm and his claims are not moot, or his third issue, in which he argues that he did not seek
4
To the extent Doe asked the trial court to modify Rule 2.16 or to implement a new rule
requiring disclosure of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation to the summary disposition
panel, it is powerless to do so. See State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 244–46 (Tex. 1994)
(“[A] district court has no authority to assume [the Supreme Court’s] authority to regulate the legal
profession. This prohibition includes the rendition of orders that would, as a practical matter,
preempt [the Supreme Court’s] authority.”).
10
to enjoin a grievance proceeding or create a new rule and that the trial court would not be intruding
on the province of the Texas Supreme Court to regulate attorney discipline.
CONCLUSION
Having concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the
trial court’s order granting the State Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss.5
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Affirmed
Filed: October 27, 2015
5
Doe’s unopposed motion for leave to file supplemental brief is granted.
11