Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
No. 17-0634
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
In re Verna Francis Coley Thetford
On Mandamus Review
From the Second Court of Appeals at Fort Worth, Texas Cause No. 02-17-00182-CV
AMENDED BRIEF OF AARP AND AARP FOUNDATON
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Beth Mitchell SBN 00784613 Disability Rights Texas 2222 W. Braker Lane Austin, Texas 78758 Phone: 512.454-4816 [email protected]
Maame Gyamfi (pro hac vice pending) William Alvarado Rivera (pro hac vice pending) Kelly Bagby (pro hac vice pending) AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Phone: 202.434-6291 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE
FILED17-06348/16/2019 1:31 PMtex-36207056SUPREME COURT OF TEXASBLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 5
I. People Subject To Guardianship Have Significant Limits On Their Personal Rights and Freedoms. ..................................................................... 5
II. Given The Liberty Rights At Stake And The Immense Power And Authority Granted To Guardians, Courts Should Steadfastly Ensure That Guardianship Proceedings Are Free Of Conflicts Of Interest And Self-Dealing, Including Disqualifying Attorneys With Apparent Conflicts Of Interest. ........................................................................ 8 A. Ignoring Conflicts Of Interest In Guardianship
Proceedings Can Lead To Elder Abuse And Financial Exploitation. ........................................................................................................... 9
B. Conflicts Of Interest Require Disqualification Of The Attorney To Protect The Interests Of The Person Being Subjected To Guardianship And Preserve The Integrity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship. ....................................................... 11
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 16 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................................... 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 18
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page Cases
Cruzan v. Missouri, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) .............................................................................. 6
Gross v. Rell, 40 A.3d 240 (Conn. 2012) ............................................................................... 1
In re Brantley, 920 P.2d 433 (Kan. 1996). ................................................................... 8, 12
In re Guardianship of A.E., 552 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App. 2018) ................................ 6, 7
In Re Guardianship of Ryan Tonner, No. 14-0940 (Tex. 2015) ................................... 1
In re Thetford, 574 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2019)........................................................... 4, 5, 15
In re Wyatt’s Case, 982 A.2d 396 (NH 2009). .......................................................... 12, 13
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) .......................................... 6
Statutes and Rules
Tex. Estates Code
§ 1002.0015 ........................................................................................................................ 7
§ 1151.004(a) ..................................................................................................................... 6
§ 1151.051(a) ..................................................................................................................... 5
§ 1151.051(c)(1) .............................................................................................................. 6
§ 1151.051(c)(4) .............................................................................................................. 6
§ 1151.101(a). .................................................................................................................... 6
§ 1151.351(5) .................................................................................................................... 9
iii
§ 1151.351(9) .................................................................................................................... 9
Tex. Disciplinary Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.02(g) ................................................... 11
Other Authorities
ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 96-404 (1996). ............................................................................................................................ 8, 12 Abuse of Power: Exploitation of Older Americans by Guardians and Others They Trust, 115th Cong. 2 (2018)......................................................... 2, 10 Ralph C. Brashier, Incapacity and the Infancy Illation, 71 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (2018) ................................................................................................................................ 7 Jenica Cassidy, Restoration of Rights in the Termination of Adult Guardianship, 23 Elder L.J. 83 (2015) ................................................................................................... 5 Colo. Bar Ass’n, Formal Ethics Op. 126 (2015). ............................................................ 14 Roberta K. Flowers et al., Ethics in the Practice of Elder Law 67 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2013). .................................................................................................. 11 Naomi Karp, Choosing Home for Someone Else: Guardianship Decisions for Long-Term Services and Supports (2013). ....................................................... 2
Mass. Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 05-05 (2005). ..................................... 13 Tex. Health and Human Servs., A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianships ............. 6, 7 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-17-33, Elder Abuse: The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, But Some Measures Exist to Help Protect Older Adults (2016) .............................................................................. 9 Va. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 1769 (2003) ....................................................................... 14
Erica Wood et al., Restoration of Rights in Adult Guardianship: Research and Recommendations (2017) ............................................................ 2, 9
1
STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE1
AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as
they age. With nearly 38 million members and offices in every state, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to
strengthen communities and advocate for what matters most to families, with
a focus on health security, financial stability, and personal fulfillment. AARP’s
charitable affiliate, AARP Foundation, works to end senior poverty by helping
vulnerable older adults build economic opportunity and social connectedness.
Among other things, AARP and AARP Foundation fight for the right of
older adults to express their own preferences, make their own decisions, and
direct their own lives, free from undue or overbroad guardianships. To
support this goal, we litigate and participate as amici curiae in state and
federal courts. E.g., In Re Guardianship of Ryan Tonner, No. 14-0940 (Tex.
2015); Gross v. Rell, 40 A.3d 240 (Conn. 2012).
AARP and AARP Foundation submit this brief to ask the Court to rehear
the appeal of the lower court’s decision refusing to disqualify an attorney with
apparent conflicts of interest from a guardianship proceeding. This case is
1 No fee has been or will be paid for the preparation of this brief.
2
crucial to older people in Texas and elsewhere because, as people age, they
could be subject to guardianship proceedings if they develop Alzheimer’s
disease, cognitive impairments, and other conditions that can affect their
capacity to make legal decisions. See Naomi Karp, Choosing Home for Someone
Else: Guardianship Decisions for Long-Term Services and Supports 7 (2013).
In addition, the number of older adults the Court’s decision will affect is
substantial. Texas has more than 50,000 active guardianships. See Abuse of
Power: Exploitation of Older Americans by Guardians and Others They Trust,
115th Cong. 2 (2018) (written testimony of David Slayton, Admin. Dir., Office
of Court Admin., Exec. Dir., Tex. Judicial Council). That number is likely to
skyrocket because the population of Texans over age 65 is expected double in
the next 20 years. Id. (referring to a “silver tsunami”).
The decision here will determine how lower courts treat conflicts of
interest involving attorneys in guardianship proceedings. These conflicts of
interest can result in undue guardianships, guardianships with self-interested
persons, or the appointment of otherwise inappropriate guardians.
What is more, once the court appoints a guardian, the person subject to
the guardianship has a slim chance of having the guardianship terminated and
their rights restored. See Erica Wood et al., Restoration of Rights in Adult
3
Guardianship: Research and Recommendations 46 (2017) (underscoring that
people subject to guardianship have trouble finding, contacting, meeting,
directing, and paying a lawyer). Thus, Amici urge the Court to ensure that
attorneys with conflicts of interest, including those who engage in self-dealing,
cannot represent a third party petitioning for a guardianship over the lawyer’s
client against their client’s wishes.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Court should grant a rehearing to ensure that courts disqualify
attorneys who have conflicts of interest because they are representing a third
party petitioning for guardianship over the lawyer’s client against the client’s
wishes. Guardianship is an extreme intervention that can result in people
losing their ability to make even the most basic decisions about their lives,
including where they live, how to spend their money, and what medical
treatment they receive.
Given the rights at stake and the power and authority of legal guardians,
courts must ensure that guardianship proceedings are free of conflicts of
interest and self-dealing. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can
completely taint a guardianship proceeding because it throws into question
whether the parties were acting in good faith and whether the result is just.
4
The court’s responsibility to bar conflicted persons is especially important
when the conflicts involve attorneys representing a petitioner against his
client. These attorneys could potentially use the privileged and sensitive
information learned from representing their client in other matters against
their client in the guardianship proceeding. Ignoring these conflicts of interest
can lead to elder abuse and financial exploitation.
Here, even if the attorney believes he is acting in the best interest of his
longtime client, he has multiple conflicts of interest that should have resulted
in his disqualification from the proceeding. For starters, he was representing
the petitioner, Ms. Rogers, the niece of his longtime client, in a guardianship
proceeding against Ms. Thetford, his longtime client, who was and remains
unequivocally adverse to the proceedings. In re Thetford, 574 S.W.3d 362,
365-66 (Tex. 2019). He also
was Ms. Rogers’s employer off and on over several years;
was the trustee for the loan that Mrs. Thetford gave to Ms. Rogers
on which Ms. Rogers defaulted. When he filed Ms. Rogers’ petition
for guardianship, she still owed money to Ms. Thetford. She later
paid off the loan during the proceedings;
5
was the drafter of the document naming Ms. Rogers as Ms.
Thetford’s power of attorney (POA); and
Filed the application for Ms. Rogers to be the guardian of Ms.
Thetford despite Ms. Thetford revoking Ms. Rogers as her POA
two weeks earlier.
Id.
Given the liberty rights at stake, this Court should grant a rehearing of
this case to ensure that attorneys with such conflicts do not represent third
parties seeking guardianship over the lawyer’s client against their client’s
wishes.
ARGUMENT
I. People Subject To Guardianship Have Significant Limits On Their Personal Rights and Freedoms. Guardianship is an extremely intrusive intervention that gives
guardians substantial authority over the lives of vulnerable people. See Tex.
Estates Code § 1151.051(a)(“guardian of a person of a ward is entitled to take
charge of the person of the ward”); Jenica Cassidy, Restoration of Rights in the
Termination of Adult Guardianship, 23 Elder L.J. 83, 84 (2015) (noting that
guardianship “removes fundamental rights and transfers them from the
individual to the guardian. It is one of society’s most drastic interventions.”)
6
A person subject to full guardianship of her person loses the right to
make critical decisions, such as where she wants to live, what medical
treatment she receives, and how much contact she has with family or friends,
subject to a court order. Tex. Estates Code § 1151.051(c)(1), (4); Tex. Health
and Human Servs., A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianships 18.
Similarly, a person appointed a full guardian of the estate loses the
freedom to make financial decisions. Tex. Estates Code § 1151.101(a). Even
more, a person appointed a full guardian of both her person and her estate
loses control of almost every aspect of her life. See Tex. Estates Code §
1151.004(a). The loss of sole authority over issues involving a person’s own
health care, property, and living arrangements is a loss of the person’s
fundamental rights. See, e.g., Cruzan v. Missouri, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990)
(recognizing the significant liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical
treatment); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 503-06, 520
(1977) (finding that the Constitution protects the ability of relatives to live
together).
In response, Texas courts have recognized that they are statutorily-
mandated to “exercise care and caution before removing a person's most
sacred rights through a guardianship proceeding.” In re Guardianship of A.E.,
7
552 S.W.3d 873, 892 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.). To that end, full
guardianship should only be a last resort after exploring all other options. Id.
These options include supported decision-making, power of attorneys, money
management options, and home and community based services and supports,
among others. See Tex. Estates Code § 1002.0015; Tex. Health and Human
Servs., A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianships 8, 9.
But the care and caution goes to more than the court considering less
drastic alternatives to guardianships. The care also extends to the court taking
the objections of the person facing guardianship seriously. See Ralph C.
Brashier, Incapacity and the Infancy Illation, 71 Ark. L. Rev. 1, 44 (2018)
(discussing that judges, attorneys, and family members infantilize and often
misunderstand the wishes of older adults). The courts should not dismiss
objections to being placed under a guardianship as routine. Id. After all, the
person knows information about their own life that the court does not.
Instead, courts should evaluate why the person is making the objection and its
impact on the proceeding.
In sum, people subject to full guardianship lose their liberty, autonomy,
and independence. With those stakes in mind, courts must step in to protect
8
people subject to guardianship proceedings and ensure that the proceedings
are free of conflicts of interest and self-dealing.
II. Given The Liberty Rights At Stake And The Immense Power And Authority Granted To Guardians, Courts Should Steadfastly Ensure That Guardianship Proceedings Are Free Of Conflicts Of Interest And Self-Dealing, Including Disqualifying Attorneys With Apparent Conflicts Of Interest. Because full guardianships limit a person’s rights and liberties, courts
should ensure that guardianship proceedings are conducted with the highest
standards. When they are not, they can lead to elder abuse and financial
exploitation.
Courts and legal ethics committees in several states have determined
that attorneys have an impermissible conflict of interest when they represent
a third party against their former or current client in a guardianship
proceeding against their client’s wishes. See, e.g., In re Brantley, 920 P.2d 433
(Kan. 1996) (sanctioning a lawyer who filed a guardianship petition against
his former client, among other acts); ABA Comm. On Ethics & Prof’l
Responsibility, Formal Op. 96-404, at 7 (1996). So too should this Court
disqualify the attorney here based on the multiple conflicts present.
9
A. Ignoring Conflicts Of Interest In Guardianship Proceedings Can Lead To Elder Abuse And Financial Exploitation.
Conflicts of interest in guardian proceedings are not simply an
optics issue. Conflicts of interest can lead to elder abuse and financial
exploitation. People seeking to be guardians for their personal gain exploit the
people in their care. See, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-17-33, Elder
Abuse: The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, But Some Measures Exist
to Help Protect Older Adults 10-11 (2016)(listing cases involving elder abuse
in guardianships, including cases involving family members as the abuser.)
These dangers are even present when the guardian is a family member. Id.
Texas guardianship law has some statutory protections for people
subject to guardianship. See Tex. Estates Code §§ 1151.351(5), (9) (requiring
guardians to consider the individual’s previous and currently expressed
preferences). But because statutory protections are not always enforced,
these limitations often do not reflect the reality of the real-life guardianships.
People subject to full guardianship have trouble challenging abuse and
exploitation because of their difficulty obtaining counsel. See Erica Wood et al.,
Restoration of Rights in Adult Guardianship: Research and Recommendations 46
(2017) (underscoring that people subject to guardianship have trouble
finding, contacting, meeting, directing, and paying a lawyer).
10
After reviewing 27,000 guardianship cases in 27 Texas counties, the
Texas Office of Court Administration found that in 43% of cases, guardians
had not complied with basic reporting requirements, such as submitting “an
annual report of the person” and “an annual accounting of the transactions
from the estate.” Abuse of Power: Exploitation of Older Americans by Guardians
and Others They Trust, 115th Cong. 5 (2018) (written testimony of David
Slayton, Admin. Dir., Office of Court Admin., Exec. Dir., Tex. Judicial Council).
What is more, most cases out of compliance were cases in which the
guardian was a family member or friend. Id. In addition to inadequate
reporting, the Office of Court Administration found unauthorized withdrawals
from accounts, unauthorized gifts to family members and friends, and other
unsubstantiated expenses. Id.
In the end, ensuring that the guardianship proceedings are free of
conflicts of interest before appointing a guardian is the best way to protect the
interests of the person subject to guardianship. When that fails, appellate
courts must step in. While the person subject to guardianship may still end up
under full guardianship, it will not stem from a bad faith proceeding tainted by
conflicts of interest.
11
B. Conflicts Of Interest Require Disqualification Of The Attorney To Protect The Interests Of The Person Being Subjected To Guardianship And Preserve The Integrity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship.
Attorneys seeking to represent a party in a guardianship proceeding
must first assess whether they have a prohibitive conflict of interest, much
like what they would consider for any case. See Roberta K. Flowers et al.,
Ethics in the Practice of Elder Law 67 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2013). In many
jurisdictions, including Texas, an attorney who believes that his client has
become incapacitated and can no longer handle her affairs can petition for
guardianship on the part of his client as a protective measure. Tex.
Disciplinary Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.02(g) (“A lawyer shall take
reasonable action to secure the appointment of a guardian or other legal
representative … whenever the lawyer reasonably believes that the client
lacks legal competence and that such action should be taken to protect the
client.”); Flowers et al., Ethics in the Practice of Elder Law 67.
That said, that scenario differs from the case here when a third party
hired an attorney to represent her to petition for a guardianship over his
client. Flowers et al., Ethics in the Practice of Elder Law at 69. If the client
objects to the guardianship, then the attorney has a conflict of interest
because the representation is directly adverse to his client. Id. It violates the
12
attorney’s duty of loyalty to the client. It also raises the specter of whether
information he learned as part of the attorney-client relationship will seep
into the guardianship proceeding.
There is an inherent imbalance of power between the person subject to
guardianship and the people moving for the appointment of a guardian. For
this reason, courts should approach such proceedings with an eye toward
protecting the rights of the person whose life hangs in the balance.
Courts around the country have taken heed and disqualified or
sanctioned attorneys where apparent conflicts of interest exist. For example,
the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed sanctions against an attorney who had
represented the stepson of his long-time client, a 91-year old woman, in a
guardianship case. In re Brantley, 920 P.2d 433 (Kan. 1996). The court held
that the representation created a conflict of interest and was materially
adverse to his client who was opposed to the proceedings. Id. at 445. At one
point, the attorney admitted that he was representing three parties involved
in the same proceeding. Id. at 436.
Likewise, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ordered an attorney
suspended for a period of two years based on his conflicts of interest related
to guardianship proceedings and guardianship of his client. See In re Wyatt’s
13
Case, 982 A.2d 396, 409 (2009). The attorney became convinced his client
lacked capacity after speaking with the client’s wife, and he advised his client’s
wife and another party to begin guardianship proceedings. Id. at 402. The
court noted that the attorney represented his client’s wife and the other party
in the guardianship proceeding against his client when he advised them as a
lawyer about the guardianship petition. Id. at 409.
Legal ethics committees have come to similar conclusions. The ABA
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility evaluated this issue and
was unequivocal in its response. It found that an attorney could not represent
a third party in a guardianship proceeding against his current client. ABA
Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 96-404, at 7 (1996).
Several state bar association ethics committees have ruled similarly. For
example, in 2005, the Massachusetts Bar Association Committee on
Professional Ethics published an advisory opinion explaining that “[i]t would
be inappropriate for a lawyer for a long-time client to represent a son seeking
to have a guardian appointed for the client when it seems likely that the
lawyer will be opposing the client’s wishes.” Mass. Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l
Ethics, Op. 05-05 (2005). Otherwise, “the lawyer would be taking a position
adverse to his own client, or former client as the case may be...” Id.
14
Likewise, the Colorado Bar Association issued an opinion explaining
that lawyers representing adult clients with diminished capacities “should not
represent a third party petitioning for the appointment of a guardian for the
lawyer’s client.” Colo. Bar Ass’n, Formal Ethics Op. 126, 10 (2015).
As in the two other examples, Virginia Bar Association found that a legal
aid lawyer could not represent a daughter seeking appointment of a guardian
for her elderly mother when the same office represented her mother in an
unrelated matter. Va. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 1769 (2003).
So too here. The Court should recognize the dangers of the attorney
representing Ms. Rogers in a guardianship proceeding against his longtime
client Ms. Thetford, when Ms. Thetford has objected to the proceeding. It is
adverse to his client and defies the attorney-client relationship.
Amici impute no nefarious intentions to the attorney or any party to the
proceeding. However, this case marks all the boxes of apparent conflicts of
interest that require the disqualification of the attorney.
🗹 An attorney who represents the petitioner against his longtime client who is adverse to the guardianship proceeding against her.
🗹 An attorney representing the petitioner (the niece of his longtime client) against his longtime client who is adverse to the guardianship proceeding against her.
15
🗹 An attorney who was the employer of the petitioner periodically over several years.
🗹 An attorney who, on behalf of his longtime client, drafted power of attorney documents naming the petitioner as his client’s power of attorney.
🗹 An attorney who filed a guardianship petition on behalf of the petitioner despite his client having revoked the petitioner as her power of attorney two weeks earlier.
🗹 An attorney who filed the guardianship petition on behalf of the petitioner despite her owing money to his longtime client whom she sought guardianship over.
🗹 An attorney who was trustee on a loan from his longtime client (lender) to the petitioner (debtor) that the petitioner did not pay according to its terms for several years, then abruptly paid after she filed guardianship papers against her aunt, the longtime client.
In re Thetford, 574 S.W.3d at 365-66 (Tex. 2019).
The guardianship appointment here should be voided due to the
conflicts of interest and circumstances surrounding this case. Ms. Thetford’s
liberties are at stake. She should not be subject to guardianship due to a
hearing tainted by conflicts of interest. While she may ultimately be subjected
to a guardianship or alternative supported service, it should not result from
an unjust proceeding.
16
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Amici respectfully request that this Court grant a
rehearing in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Beth Mitchell Beth Mitchell SBN 00784613
Disability Rights Texas 2222 W. Braker Lane Austin, Texas 78758 Phone: 512.454.4816 [email protected]
Maame Gyamfi William Alvarado Rivera Kelly Bagby AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Phone: 202.434.6291 [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE
17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Based on a word count run on Microsoft Word, this brief contains 3100
words, excluding the portions exempted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.49(i)(1). The document was created using Microsoft Word, 14-point
typeface.
/s/ Beth Mitchell Beth Mitchell
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that
on August 22, 2019, a copy of the foregoing brief was served via electronic file
manager on all parties through counsel of record listed below:
Alfred G. Allen III Toby L. Reddell [email protected] [email protected] Turner & Allen DeLaCruz & Reddell PLLC P.O. Box 930 434 S. Oak Street, Suite C Graham, Texas 76450 Graham, Texas 76450
Attorney Ad Litem for Donald E. Herrmann Verna Francis Coley Thetford [email protected] Joe Greenhill Alexandra Wilson Albright [email protected] [email protected] Kelly Hart & Hallman Alexander Dubose & 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Jefferson LLP Fort Worth, Texas 76102 515 Congress Ave., Ste. 2350 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Austin, Texas 78701-3562 Jamie Kay Rogers and Ciera Bank of Graham, Texas Robert E. Aldrich, Jr.
[email protected] Hon. Steven Bristow Mary H. Barkley [email protected] [email protected] Presiding Judge, 90th District Court Cantey Hanger LLP Young County 600 W. 6th Street, Suite 300 516 Fourth Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3685 Graham, Texas 76450 Attorneys for Verna Francis
Coley Thetford
19
W. Amon Burton Julie Balovich [email protected] [email protected] 4200 Avenue G Hannah Samson Austin, Texas 78751 [email protected] 114 N. 6th Street Charles Herring, Jr. Alpine, Texas 79830 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus M.W. Jason M. Panzer [email protected] Don D. Ford III Herring & Panzer, L.L.P. [email protected] 1411 West Avenue, Suite 100 Ford Bergner LLP Austin, Texas 78701 700 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 James M. McCormack Attorneys for Amicus Ford Bergner [email protected] LLP 1715 S. Capital of Texas Hwy Suite 200A Austin, Texas 78746 (512) 615-2408 Attorneys for Amicus Legal Ethics Counsel
/s/ Beth Mitchell Beth Mitchell
