Filed: 1/30/2018 12:18 PM
Lynne Finley District Clerk
Collin County, Texas By Darrin Krumm Deputy Envelope ID: 22161221
417-00438-2018
CAUSE NO. ___________________ THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE, Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas VS. S. LEE MERRITT
§ § § § § § §
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORI GINAL
PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas, Plaintiff, complains of S. Lee Merritt, Defendant, and for cause of action respectfully shows the Court the following: 1. Plaintiff is a standing committee of the Supreme Court of Texas created by the Texas Legislature pursuant to Sec. 81.103 and Sec 81.104 of the Texas Texas Government Code. The Committee’s Committee’s members are appointed by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. 2. Defendant S. LEE MERRITT is a resident of Collin County, Texas, and may be served with process at 9611 Custer Rd., #3133, Plano TX 75025. 3. Discovery is to be conducted under Level 2, per Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, although Plaintiff requests modification of the discovery level to Level 3 as permitted under Rule 190.4. Plaintiff is not seeking seeking monetary relief. relief. 4.
Plaintiff is authorized to bring this action pursuant to Sec. 81.104 of the Texas Government
Code. 5. Venue is proper in in Collin County, Texas under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.023 because Defendant S. LEE MERRITT is a resident of Collin County, Texas, and injunction suits against a resident "shall be tried in a district or county court in the county in which the party is domiciled." See id . 6. Plaintiff would show that Defendant is not, nor has he ever been, an attorney licensed to practice in Texas nor a member of the State Bar of Texas so as to allow him to engage in acts, practices or conduct that constitutes the practice practice of law in Texas. Defendant is an attorney licensed licensed to practice only in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 7. Defendant, acting alone and in concert with others, has engaged in the unauthorized practice of o f law in Texas. Based on o n information information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is continuing cont inuing to engage in acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law. 8. Defendant has resided in Texas since July of 2014. During that time, Defendant was a full-time employee employee of o f the Dallas Dallas Independent School District. On at least one occasion occasion since becoming a Texas resident, Defendant applied to the Board of Law Examiners for admission to the State Bar of
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 1
Texas. Although he applied to take the July 2015 Texas Bar Examination, Examination, Defendant did not do so and has not since sought admis ad mission sion to the State Stat e Bar of Texas. 9. Defendant is a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania, however Defendant’s license to practice law in Pennsylvania was suspended on or about November 18, 2016. Defendant has since been reinstated in Pennsylvania. 10. Despite not being licensed to practice practice law in Texas, Defendant has engaged in the practice of law in Texas by conduct, including, without limitation, doing the following acts while not licensed to practice law in Texas or being a member of o f the State St ate Bar of Texas. The followings are further supported by the Affidavits of Deborah De borah K. Hartley, Robin Landis, and Kim T. Cole attached att ached as Exhibits A through Exhibit C and incorporated herein. DiGiovanni Case a. Sending a letter letter of representation on behalf of at least one individual to opposing counsel on or about February 18, 2015, purporting to represent her in a personal injury matter in state district district court in Texas (the “DiG “DiGiovanni case”); b. Entering into a contingent fee agreement on or about October 15, 2014, with at least one individual to represent DiGiovanni in a personal injury matter in state district court in Texas; c. Despite the fact fact that the lawsuit lawsuit was filed filed in state state district court court in Texas, Defendant represented himself to opposing counsel as counsel for the plaintiff in the DiGiovanni case and discussed with opposing counsel the merits of pending pretrial motions, including claiming authority to make an agreement on such motions on behalf of the plaintiff; Colton Case d. Entering into into a retention retention agreement on or about October October 26, 2016 in a suit affecting the parent child relationship pending in state district court in Texas (the “Colton case” case”); e. Advising opposing counsel in in the Colton Colton case that he had had been retained to represent represent one of the parties. He also accepted service of discovery requests on behalf of that party; f. Accepting fees fees for for legal services from from parties parties in the Colton Colton case; g. Appearing via telephone in a state district district court hearing in in the Colton case and attempting to speak on behalf of a party with regard to a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions; h. Preparing and filing filing an agreed motion motion for continuance on or about about December 8, 2016, in the Colton case; Farr v. AISD et al.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 2
i.
Preparing and filing filing a lawsuit lawsuit in the Farr v. AISD AISD is a district district court case in Tarrant County, 236th District Court of Tarrant County, Cause No. 236-291133-17, to bring a claim on behalf of numerous plaintiffs against the Arlington Independent School District (“AISD”) and other parties for injunctive relief and damages for personal injuries (“the Farr case”);
j.
Appearing in such court for a hearing on a Plea to the Jurisdiction Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss in the Farr case;
k. Joining with a Texas-licensed attorney to sign sign a Notice of Appeal and Designation of Matters in Clerk’s Record, purportedly on behalf of a group of plaintiffs in an appeal of an order dismissing dismissing the Farr case; Wright Case l.
Using a motion motion for for admission pro hac vice vice to obtain permission to enter an appearance in a personal injury lawsuit in state district court in Texas (the “Wright case”) without complying with or being eligible under the requirements of Rule XIX of the Rules of the Texas Board of Law Examiners, such rule pertaining to the requirements for participation in Texas proceedings by a non -resident attorney;
m. Substituting as counsel of record by filing an agreed motion to substitute counsel on or about February 26, 2016, for a Texas-licensed attorney in the Wright case while the Texas-licensed attorney withdrew; n. Filing a trial memorandum in the Wright case in in preparation for for a jury trial to be held on June 13, 2017 in Cause No. DC-15-09468 in state district court in Dallas County, Texas; Walker Mediation n. Attended and participated as attorney on behalf of Ernest Walker during during a mediation on or about December 8, 2016. Mediation was ultimately successful with Walker receiving a settlement sum ( see see Exhibit A – A – Kim Kim T. Cole Affidavit); upon receiving said sum, Merritt declared such sum as his/his his/ his firm’s fee and refused to share any fees with the associated attorney Kim T. Cole see (see id.) id.) Miscellaneous p. Attempting to gain authority to participate in matters pending in Texas Te xas state courts by means of motions for admission pro admission pro hac vice or vice or Rule XIX of the Rules of the Texas Board of Law Examiners when, as a resident of Texas, he was not eligible to do so; q. Setting up websites advertising advertising his legal services in matters such as general practice, personal injury, family law, criminal law, and medical malpractice with an office in Texas, without expressly disclosing that he is not licensed to practice in Texas;
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 3
r. Using an image image of the Dallas, Texas skyline skyline in his law law firm website with a Dallas Dallas address without expressly disclosing that he is not licensed to practice in Texas; s. Representing himself himself on social social and traditional media as the attorney for numerous individuals in Tarrant County and surrounding counties in Texas in matters involving police incidents that occurred in Texas and criminal charges filed in Texas state courts and arising under Texas law; t.
Representing himself to police police and law enforcement agencies, including the Tarrant Tarrant County District Attorney’s office, as the t he attorney for various individuals against whom criminal charges arising under Texas law were filed;
u. Giving legal advice to individuals in Texas regarding but not limited limited to state criminal law matters arising under Texas law, personal injury matters, remedies available under the Texas Education Code, and negligence cases; v. Using signs, signs, symbols, and words on advertisements and and the like like which are designed to lead a person of average or ordinary intelligence to believe that they are dealing with a lawyer authorized to practice law in Texas; w. Advising individuals of their rights, duties, and responsibilities regarding Texas law, and advising them with regard to making claims and instituting lawsuits in Texas state courts to pursue such claims; c laims; x. Advising individuals individuals that he can assist them in legal matters matters in Texas state courts; y. Preparing pleadings pleadings which are filed in in court proceedings proceedings in state state courts in in Texas; z. Contracting with with persons to represent them regarding causes of action arising arising out of Texas law despite knowledge that said causes of action could not be brought in federal court; aa. Representing to a litigant litigant and opposing counsel that he could respond to discovery in a lawsuit in Texas state court; co urt; and bb. Misrepresenting his status status and authorization to practice law in Texas. cc. On or about September September 17, 2017, Merritt Merritt presented himself himself to Albert Woolum in in a manner where Woolum was led to believe that Merritt was a licensed Texas attorney; specifically, Merritt gave Woolum legal advice related to his state criminal case and informed Woolum to not discuss his case with anyone and that his legal fees were covered by a third party; at which time, Merritt constructed a “GoFundMe” account on behalf of Woolum without Woolum’s Woolum’s knowledge or consent for such fees. dd. Attempting to fee fee share with other attorneys attorneys in the State of Texas regarding Texas clients whom Mr. Merritt sought out, directly or indirectly, through a network. 11. Plaintiff has reason to believe, believe, does believe, and, therefore, does aver that because of the pattern of conduct on the part of Defendant, he will in the future engage in a course of conduct that is Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 4
similar to the course of conduct set out in Paragraph 10 above, which would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The public interest and protection of the public demand that legal advice and legal services be rendered to the public only by persons duly qualified, schooled, and educated in the law and who are attorneys duly admitted to practice practice under the laws of the State of Texas. Public interest demands demands that persons receiving legal services will receive the same directly from qualified persons who are, at all times, subject to the ethical considerations and disciplinary rules of the State Bar of Texas and of Texas state courts. Further, it it is among the functions of the Supreme Court of Texas and the State Bar of Texas to aid in maintaining high standards of professional services, to protect the conduct of attorneys and the professional professional services they offer, o ffer, to protect the public against unqualified and unlicensed persons rendering legal services, and to protect the professional standards and the public reputation of attorneys and the legal profession. 12. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy remedy at law law with which to prevent prevent the activities of the Defendant. Defendant’s actions have the potential to affect the legal legal rights of the general public of the State of Texas. As a result, result, Plaintiff alleges alleges that irreparable damage and harm will occur to the public generally, for which there is no adequate legal remedy should the activities of Defendant continue unabated. 13. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction against Defendant enjoining Defendant from engaging in acts or practices which are or could constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
14.
Plaintiff incorporates all the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 13 above as if fully set out
herein. 15. Unless this Court immediately intervenes, the public will continue to be injured by the acts of Defendant. In particular, particular, Defendant will continue to engage in acts constituting constituting the unauthorized practice of o f law in Texas. Additionally, Additionally, Defendant’s actions raise a substantial threat that Defendant D efendant will continue to receive monies as attorney’s fees which are improperly obtained and cannot be recovered by Plaintiff on behalf of the injured parties. 16. Plaintiff prays that the Court enter a Temporary Restraining Order pending further hearing and orders by the Court. Said Temporary Restraining Order is is sought to prohibit prohibit Defendant from the following: a. Participating in in any way as an attorney in the participation, including prosecution and defense of any matter matt er arising under Texas State law filed in Texas state courts b. Entering into agreements to provide legal representation for persons in Texas in matters arising under Texas law or to be filed in Texas state courts; c. Attempting to to gain authority to participate participate in matters pending in Texas state courts by means of motions for admission pro admission pro hac vice or vice or Rule XIX of the Rules of the Texas Board of Law Examiners; d. Representing himself to individuals seeking seeking legal services, opposing opposing counsel in court cases, court personnel, law enforcement agencies, the general public, or any Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 5
other third party, either directly or through any media, as a person authorized to provide legal services in Texas state courts or in connection with legal matters arising under Texas law; e. Utilizing social social media, websites, websites, letterhead, advertising, or other methods to to present himself to the general public as an a n attorney without disclosing that he is not licensed to practice law in Texas; f. Contracting for, charging, or accepting accepting payment for for legal services rendered or to be rendered in Texas state courts or in connection with matters, including fee sharing, arising under Texas law; g. Appearing in Texas state courts courts on behalf of clients; h. Drafting pleadings for use in Texas state courts, whether whether signed by him or by any other person; i.
Using signs, symbols, symbols, words on advertisements and the like which are designed to lead a person of average or ordinary intelligence to believe that they are dealing with a lawyer authorized to practice law in Texas;
j.
Advising individuals of their rights, duties, and responsibilities with regard to Texas law, and advising them with regard to making claims and instituting lawsuits in Texas state courts to pursue such claims; c laims;
k. Participating in discovery in lawsuits lawsuits in Texas state court; and l.
Misrepresenting his status and and authorization authorization to practice practice law law in in Texas.
17. Plaintiff requests that, after notice and hearing, hearing, the Court enter a Temporary Injunction, to remain in force throughout the pendency of this case, enjoining Defendant from the acts and practices described in Paragraph 16 above, as well as any other acts and practices that the Court finds that Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in. 18. Plaintiff requests that, upon final trial, the Temporary Injunction requested above be entered as a Permanent Injunction. 19. Under Section 6 of the Order Approving Amendments to the Rules Governing the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas on November 27, 2007, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee shall not be required to post any bond upon the granting of a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction pursuant to any litigation filed by the Committee. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Plaintiff prays that Defendant, S. Lee Merritt, be cited to appear and answer herein as required by law and that, upon final hearing thereof, Plaintiff have judgment granting:
a. A Temporary Restraining Order as requested herein; b. A Temporary Injunction as requested herein; Plaintiff’s Original Petition Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief
Page 6
