Three Goldfarb LLP Lawyers Named To 2019 Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Three Goldfarb LLP lawyers were named Texas Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2011 in business and securities litigation.marketwatch.com Jeffrey Goldfarb was named a "Super Lawyer" while Hamilton Lindley and Anthony Lowenberg were named "Rising Stars." Attorney rating service Super Lawyers will publish the survey findings in Texas Super Lawyers magazine, as well as Texas Monthly magazine. Each year, Super Lawyers asks attorneys to nominate outstanding colleagues for Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Attorneys nominate those whom they have personally observed in action as opposing counsel, as co-counsel, or through other firsthand courtroom observation. An attorney-led research team then reviews the credentials of potential candidates, assigns points based on a set of defined evaluation criteria, and ensures nominees are ranked by point totals. Those with the highest scores under 40 or practicing 10 years or fewer are named to the "Rising Stars" list. Those practicing more than 10 years or over 40 are named to the Super Lawyers list. To ensure a diverse and well-balanced list, the research staff considers factors such as firm size, practice area, and geographic location. Goldfarb LLP focuses on its clients’ needs in complex civil litigation. The firm’s experience includes lawsuits involving business, real estate, fiduciary and securities litigation.


Reyes created a contract to submit against his client in a disciplinary matter to retain the client s money. 5,000 bond to his own use. The attorney promised to pay it back when the client discovered it. When the attorney did not respond to 25 calls after failing to pay it back, the client filed a grievance. The lawyer then created a contract, signed his client s name and then submitted it to the State Bar of Texas in a grievance proceeding. That grievance was then dismissed based on the fabricated document. He was disbarred at the second proceeding when Reyes conduct was revealed. 5,000. Id., at 8. That did not happen here.


Unlike that attorney, Mr. Lindley did not retain money belonging to a client. Mr. Lindley did not submit fabricated documents in a proceeding. And Reyes did not involve the same mitigating factors as Mr. Lindley. In fact, Reyes continued to claim the document was authentic despite the impossibility that the client could have signed it on the day as Reyes claimed. That was not the case for Mr. Lindley. He admitted his wrong. 11 The third case revealed by CFLD is also inapposite. Matter of Redeker, 177 Ariz. 305, 310 (Ariz. 1994). Redeker was under active suspension when six clients complained of his misconduct.


Id., at 305. Mr. Lindley has yet to receive a complaint from a client. And he was not under suspension. Unlike Mr. Lindley, Redeker failed to cooperate with the State Bar. Id., at 307. He refused to respond to clients or refund money for fees. Id. Unlike Mr. Lindley, Redeker denied signing a client s name in the disciplinary process. Id., at Unlike Mr. Lindley, he later admitted that he had lied many times in the disciplinary process. Id., at 309. Unlike Mr. Lindley, Redeker was under active suspension for very similar behavior at the time of the misconduct. Id., at 310. If Mr. Lindley had possession of this case when it was submitted to the Panel, it would have been clear that the situation was very different than CFLD claimed.


But CFLD kept this case secret too. It is clear why. C. The standard of review for legal conclusions is de novo CFLD contends that this Board should apply the abuse of discretion standard to legal conclusions instead of de novo review. Aee. Br. at 20. There is not authority for this claim. But CFLD claims, no authority supports the proposition that the Board should apply a lesser standard of review. Aee. Br. at 20. That argument directly conflicts with this Board s ruling in Schultz v. Comm n Lawyer Discipline, No , 2015 WL (Tex. In re Humphreys, 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex.


2 (Texas Bd. Disp. 2 (Texas Bd. Disp. The Board should apply de novo review of the legal conclusions. CFLD is conflating the excessive sanction standard which holds that a Panel abuses its discretion by imposing a sanction that is so heavy that it amounts to an abuse of discretion. Molina v. Comm n for Lawyer Discipline, BODA No (March 31, 2006). That happened here too. As shown by Mr. Lindley s opening brief, the standard sanction for similar misconduct is a suspension. Lawyers from Texas, the District of Columbia, and Arizona are not inferior because those bars have suspended lawyers for conduct like Mr. Lindley s. Whatever the standard, Mr. Lindley meets it.


Disbarment is excessive. D. The Panel s judgment was based on improper law cited by CFLD CFLD urges this Board to believe that the only law considered by the Panel was Rule Aee. Br. at 18. This is true only if the Board leaves its common sense at home. The Panel considered the case law awash with error cited by CFLD. ] make the following conclusions of law. CR 445. It also stated that after hearing all argument it then considered the Rule 2.18 factors. Id. The Panel considered the improper law in CFLD s closing argument. The judgment says it.


2 The Rule or Rules refer to the rules in the Tex. Disp. R. Prof l. 13 E. CFLD s claim that the cases are distinctions without a difference is false CFLD makes the cliched statement that Mr. Lindley s cases are distinctions without a difference. Aee. Br. at 20. This seeks to avoid legal scrutiny. According to its brief, CFLD now believes that these allegations are distinctions without a difference in attorney discipline matters: Multiple disciplinary matters. App. Br. at 26. Misappropriating government funds. App. Br. at 26. Concealing evidence to [https://Www.Businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006140/en/Goldfarb-Branham-Law-Firm-LLP-Investigating-Shareholders� convict defendants]. App. Br. at 27. Discovery sanctions not involving disbarment or suspension.


App. Br. at 24. Creating altered documents to provide as evidence to a court. App. Br. at 24, 28, 29. Lying about creating falsified documents in depositions or trial. App. Br. at 24, 29. Profiting by tens of millions of dollars from fraud. App. Br. at 29. Lying to a grievance committee. App. Br. at 29. CFLD s argument is easier to see through than oversized novelty binoculars. These distinctions will be critical to the CFLD s arguments in upcoming matters before this same Board. CFLD is capable of better. This Board can ensure that Panels impose the attorney discipline consistently. But if this Board gives a tacit endorsement to CFLD s arguments, applying the rules will be inconsistent and based on improper law and evidence. F. Mr. Lindley s misconduct does not warrant disbarment under Rule 2.18 CFLD claims that Mr. Lindley profited from his misconduct.


Aee. Br. at 21. This illustrates the improper legal and factual conclusions of the Panel. 14 obtained after deducting costs of a transaction. Black s Law Dictionary 560 (2nd Pocket ed. There was no money gained by Mr. Lindley. Supp 58; RR 328 L11; CR In fact, he did not even plan to profit. RR 175 L Mr. Lindley instead sought to secure his right to a fee that he earned. RR 48, L This Board should give the word profit its plain, ordinary meaning. If Rule 2.18(F) was meant to include, as CFLD now claims, the potential amount of future revenue generated by wrongdoing, then that rule should simply say that.


But it does not. This Board should not hold that Rule 2.18(F) means anything but what it says. Mr. Lindley did not profit. In fact, he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. To hold that a loss of hundreds of thousands is really a profit reveals why the Panel s sanction must be reversed. All the other factors cited by CFLD are achieved by suspension instead of disbarment. Mr. Lindley understands the nature and degree of his misconduct. RR 47 L4-9; RR 82 L5; RR 129 L23; RR 139 L6. It was serious. RR 39 L1; RR 46 L2; RR 47 L8; RR 82 L20; RR 131 L RR 167 L6-8; RR But the circumstances included extortion, which mitigate Rule 2.18(B) in his favor. RR 82 L15; Resp Ex 20a, 21b 15; RR 291 L There was no loss or damage to clients.


His misconduct included no nonlawyer, so that factor is limited. His damage to the profession is kept by suspension. That is the routine sanction for similar conduct across the land. App. Br. at There is assurance that those who seek legal services are insulated. CR There was no profit. CR There was not repetition it was confined to the relationship with Complainant. 15 And Mr. Lindley had no prior discipline. Pet Ex 67. The deterrent effect on others is maintained by suspension, and so can the maintenance of the respect for the profession. App. Br. at Mr. Lindley s conduct at the disciplinary proceeding was candid, remorseful and cooperative.


RR 39 L1; RR 46 L2; RR 47 L8; RR 82 L20; RR 131 L RR 167 L6-8; RR This shows he would not engage in the same conduct if given the opportunity. He also presented a disability to the Panel while maintaining a good faith program of recovery. RR 128; Rule 2.18 does not support disbarment when evaluating these factors. Even a case cited by CFLD shows that suspension is the correct sanction. In Thawer, a lawyer received a partially probated suspension for, among other things, signing the name of another lawyer without permission. Thawer v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 523 S.W.3d 177, 188 (Tex. CFLD s own case shows that disbarment is not the only option. This conflicts with CFLD s representation to the Panel. Implicit in this disbarment is that someone was harmed.


But the Complainant received almost one million dollars from Mr. Lindley s work on the Rural Metro case. CR Every person reading this pleading worked on the Rural Metro case for as much time as the Complainant. It is not harmful when a lawyer receives almost one million dollars for a case he never worked on. Texas, the District of Columbia and Arizona have all suspended lawyers under similar circumstances. 16 the profession from damage, and kept the respect for the legal profession strong through suspension. Three years active suspension is somber punishment. Mr. Lindley invites CFLD to scrutinize his daily affairs for five years to ensure his fitness to practice law. A suspension is serious, fulfills the factors in Rule 2.18, and should be applied here. CFLD s head is in the sand for Mr. Lindley s mental condition.


That is wrong. Mr. Lindley was afraid of sharing the dark nights of his soul with others at the time of his misconduct. It was not mere sadness. His terror was all consuming. He could not think rationally when suicidal desires overwhelmed him. It was years of flight or fight level panic. Suicide seemed like it would unburden everyone while providing for his family. Mr. Lindley s conduct should be viewed through that lens of a depressed mind. By CFLD ignoring depression, it means that fewer lawyers will be honest about their own struggles. That is not right. Today, Mr. Lindley acknowledges his weakness and does not recognize the man he used to be. RR 132 L Mr. Lindley has a support system that knows his struggle.


And Complainant s extortion loses its power by being exposed. This will not happen again. 17 automatically excluded. The Panel s decision to disbar Mr. Lindley must be reversed, based on this automatically excluded evidence. Mark Dietz s deposition transcript and the true phone recording between Complainant and Mr. Lindley were not produced in discovery. When a party fails to respond to discovery timely, the undisclosed evidence is automatically inadmissible unless one of two exceptions applies: (1) good cause for failure to respond, or (2) lack of unfair surprise or prejudice to the other side. Tex. R. Civ. P (a).


See, e.g., Lopez v. La Madeleine of Tex., Inc., 200 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. CFLD offered the evidence. RR 187. But the Panel improperly required Mr. Lindley to show harm for the Dietz transcript. RR 188, L9. This was an abuse of discretion. ]he burden of establishing good cause or the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice is on the party seeking to introduce the evidence or call the witness. Tex. R. Civ. P (b). The Panel wrongfully placed the burden on Mr. Lindley. ] finding of good cause or of the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice must be supported by the record. Tex. R. Civ. P (b).


CFLD showed no support in the record that for the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice. 18 lack of prejudice to the party opposing the admission of the evidence. 2 (Tex. App. Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2010, pet. The Panel abused its discretion by failing to exclude the Dietz deposition transcript and including Complainant s altered recording. It possessed no discretion to admit that evidence because it had not been produced before trial. ] to do it. RR 189, L12. It was clear that Mr. Lindley s objection was implicitly overruled. CFLD could do it any way it wanted. As shown above, the Panel had no discretion to admit that evidence. So when Complainant later stated that he had also failed to produce a document, it was clear that the Panel was going to assign again the wrong standard to evidence that should be automatically excluded.


Additional objections were futile, as discussed below. CFLD claims that Mr. Lindley later waived his objection. This argument ignores that the objection was already preserved. 20 Here, the Panel was barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 819 (Tex. The case citations offered by CFLD were wrong and easily distinguished had the state prosecutor not kept them concealed from Mr. Lindley. These were the only cases offered for disbarment. The deposition was legally barred from admission because it was based on unfair surprise and the Panel required Mr. Lindley to prove that it was not harmful when that was the burden of the state. The recording was legally barred from admission because it had never been produced in discovery and it was an inaccurate recording.


But despite that bar, they were admitted anyway. This is not legally or factually sufficient. D. It is harmful to admit false evidence. CFLD claims its offer of altered evidence in a proceeding against Mr. Lindley is harmless. Aee. Br. at 23. It then turns on a dime to claim Mr. Lindley s conduct supports disbarment, despite Mr. Lindley never presenting false evidence in a proceeding. Aee. Br. at 17. CFLD should not have offered the inaccurate recording once Complainant revealed that he had not produced the full recording. See App. Br. at Complainant earlier testified at a deposition that he had produced all the recordings.


Id. CFLD has moved to strike that deposition to continue to conceal the basis of this disbarment. The revelation that Complainant submitted false evidence to the state court in another proceeding and false evidence to the grievance Panel did not deter CFLD from offering it. The true recording has never been produced. 21 CFLD had claimed before this Board that a lawyer s conduct like Complainant s was so egregious that CFLD sought a ten-year partially probated suspension against him. Scarbrough v. Comm n Lawyer Discipline, No (Tex. Scarbrough failed to disclose immediately the existence of a recording. Complainant did the same here.


But now CFLD claims that Complainant s conduct was harmless. These two conflicting arguments suggest that CFLD s contention is not motivated by the enforcement of the ethical rules. Both of Texas highest courts have recently ruled on the admissibility of recordings. And both are in Mr. Lindley s favor. In Diamond Offshore, the Texas Supreme Court held that a court abused its discretion by failing to watch a video before excluding it. Diamond Offshore Servs. Ltd. Williams, No (Tex. March 2, 2018). Similarly, the Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that admitting a partial recording was error because partial recordings are inaccurate.


The recording thus violated a criminal statute involving recordings, even though the recording was only partial by accident. Flores v. State, No. PD (Tex. Likewise, this altered recording should have never been admitted. Although the CLFD claims it was redacted there are no indications on the recording or the transcript of any redaction. Pet Ex 46. It was instead doctored to appear like a complete recording. It was not. E. Demonstrative evidence confused witnesses. Because the demonstratives were not included in the record, it is not apparent when they are used. 22 exhibits. CFLD s counsel performed parts of its examination by standing next to these non-admitted exhibits. Use of these non-admitted exhibits showed that CFLD was granted broader scope than Mr. Lindley in the hearing.


For example, a single question asked by CFLD over the non-admitted exhibit spans three pages. RR 157, L , L14. Mr. Dunnam was confused by the non-admitted exhibits. RR 309 L 12. The demonstratives were used to advance the text box gambit employed by CFLD. RR 158 L 22; RR 314 L11. Dr. Mark and Mr. Cole were likewise confused by the demonstratives. RR 164 L1; RR 182 L3. They were puzzling. Because they were not admitted, it makes them also confusing for this Board. F. Hearsay objection was overruled improperly. CFLD fails to submit any case law showing that the sustained hearsay objection was proper.


To bolster CFLD s failing contention, it makes two opposing arguments. CFLD claims that Lindley later testified, without objection to what occurred at the mediation. Aee. Br. at 24. And then, in direct contrast to that statement, CFLD claims the record does not contain an offer of proof. Id. These two arguments oppose each other. When the substance of the evidence is made known through the context of the questions, it amounts to an offer of proof. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). Although the entire context of what was said at the mediation could not be explained because of the sustained objection, the substance of what would have been included was presented.


Lindley explained how he was prohibited from discussing the source of the extortion that was the heart of Mr.hamiltonlindley.org Lindley s mitigation evidence. 23 to Mr. Lindley s state of mind. It is apparent from the context of the questions asked that statement included important mitigation evidence. The exclusion was improper. The excluded evidence was harmful error because it affected a material issue and was not cumulative of other evidence. See Williams Distrib. Co. v. Franklin, 898 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Tex. Without that critical evidence, mitigation was not evaluated by the Panel, leading to an excessive punishment. CONCLUSION A disbarment should not rely on falsified evidence, unfair surprise or the wrong law. Here, all the factors of Rule 2.18 are satisfied through suspension. That is a routine sanction throughout the country for similar misconduct.


Mr. Lindley is heartbroken over his misconduct and this disbarment. So he offers the opportunity to get his license back by complete transparency into his personal and business affairs.linkedin.com CFLD can have the access that would make the NSA blush. Nothing is lost if CFLD is right about Mr. Lindley. But if CFLD is wrong and it is then Mr. Lindley can return to the profession that has been his lifelong dream after being held under a microscope by CFLD for five years. This disbarment is wrong. It relied on the wrong law and manufactured evidence. CLFD is capable of better than using distorted quotes and false evidence to secure a ruling. It cannot be proud of that. The Panel s judgment must be reversed. 24 PRAYER Mr. Lindley requests that the Board reverse the sanction of disbarment, remanding to the Panel for hearing again, or alternatively, render a suspension.


As a first time recipient of the award Mr.txboda.org Lindley is excited to have been selected for such a high honor. The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 touts itself as an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state in the nation who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research. Membership is extended solely to the select few of the most qualified attorneys from each state who demonstrate superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence, stature and public profile. Each of the distinguished Top 100 members possess the knowledge, skill, experience and success held by only the finest and best lawyers in America. By combining resources, power and influence, The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is devoted to preserving and protecting justice for all.businesswire.com Personal injury lawyer Hamilton Lindley represents victims of accidents involving serious injuries such as brain injuries and spinal cord injuries. Dunnam & Dunnam is a full service firm that includes child custody, divorce, civil litigation, criminal defense and other legal matters.