Texas Bar Journal • June 2026

Disciplinary Actions

JUDICIAL ACTIONS

To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.

On March 17, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to MICHAEL TOWERS, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Bandera, Bandera County.

On April 20, 2026, before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in In Re: Honorable Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez, County Court at Law No. 13, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, a voluntary agreement to resign from judicial office in lieu of disciplinary action was entered into by ROSIE SPEEDLIN-GONZALEZ, judge, County Court at Law No. 13, San Antonio, Bexar County, and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

BODA

On February 4, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered a default judgment of disbarment in the reciprocal discipline case against San Antonio attorney JAMES R. PALMER [#00793217]. On August 29, 2019, the Supreme Court of Florida, in the matter styled In Re: Petition for Disciplinary Revocation of James R. Palmer, Case No. SC19-711, issued an order granting the uncontested petition for disciplinary revocation of Palmer, noting that the revocation was tantamount to disbarment. Palmer did not contest allegations that he failed to meet the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar regarding the regulation of trust accounts. BODA Case No. 64479.

On February 4, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered a default judgment of suspension in the reciprocal discipline case against East Lyme, Connecticut, attorney WESLEY S. SPEARS [#18898400]. On September 25, 2023, in a matter styled Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Wesley S. Spears, Docket No. CV- 22-6160733-S, the Superior Court, Judicial District suspended Spears from the practice of law for two years. The court found that Spears violated Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 (frivolous claim), 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal), 8.2(a) (false or reckless statement concerning the qualification or integrity of a judge), 8.4(3) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). He is suspended from the practice of law in Texas for a period of two years beginning February 4, 2026, and extending through February 3, 2028. BODA Case No. 68987.

On February 4, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered a default judgment of suspension in the reciprocal discipline case against East Lyme, Connecticut, attorney WESLEY S. SPEARS [#18898400]. On April 3, 2025, in the matter styled Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Wesley S. Spears, Cause No. UWY CV 24 6081813-S, the State of Connecticut, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, suspended Spears from the practice of law for a period of one year, consecutive to the two-year suspension ordered by the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, on September 25, 2023. The court found that Spears violated Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). He is suspended from the practice of law in Texas for a period of one year to be served consecutively to the suspension ordered in BODA Case No. 68987 beginning February 4, 2028, and extending through February 3, 2029. BODA Case No. 72209.

On March 19, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed judgment of public reprimand in the reciprocal discipline case against Arrington, Tennessee, attorney DANIEL OLEN BARHAM [#24133655]. On March 20, 2025, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Disciplinary District III, issued a public censure in a case styled In Re: Daniel Olen Barham, #034103, File No. 73450-6-MB, finding that Barham violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel) and 8.4(d) (misconduct). BODA Case No. 72719.

On March 23, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued an order of dismissal, dismissing for want of prosecution the appeal filed by Houston attorney DOMINIQUE DANIELLE ROSS NWAJEI [#24088137]. On October 13, 2025, Evidentiary Panel 4-2 of the District 4 Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas issued a judgment of partially probated suspension finding that Nwajei violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.01(b)(1) (neglect), 1.05(b) (1)(ii) (confidentiality of information), and 1.15(d) (declining or terminating representation, since renumbered as Rule 1.16(d)). BODA Case No. 71896.

SUSPENSIONS

On March 27, 2026, ALAN RAY CERVENKA [#04048900], of Richmond, accepted a two-year judgment of partially probated suspension effective April 15, 2026, with the first two months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that in representing his client, Cervenka neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations he owed to his client, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of their legal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to withdraw from representing his client when Cervenka’s physical and mental condition materially impaired his fitness to represent his client.

Cervenka violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 1.16(a)(2). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.

On March 31, 2026, MARTIN S. WOZNIAK [#22013550], of Sadler, received an 18-month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2026, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that on March 20, 2023, a judgment of private reprimand was entered against Wozniak in Commission for Lawyer Disciplinev. Martin S. Wozniak, Case Number 202002593, before the District 7 Grievance Committee, Evidentiary Panel 7-1, State Bar of Texas. Pursuant to the judgment, Wozniak was ordered to pay restitution of $2,500, made payable to the complainant. Restitution was to be delivered to the State Bar of Texas, Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, on or before June 8, 2023. Wozniak failed to submit payment of restitution in a timely manner. Pursuant to the judgment, Wozniak was also ordered to pay attorneys’ fees of $3,177 and direct expenses of $580, made payable to the State Bar of Texas. Attorneys’ fees and direct expenses were to be delivered to the State Bar of Texas, Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, on or before September 8, 2023. Wozniak failed to timely submit payment of attorneys’ fees and direct expenses. Wozniak failed to submit full payment of restitution, attorneys’ fees, and direct expenses; he failed to comply with the terms of the judgment.

Wozniak violated Rule 8.04(a) (7). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution, $6,072 in attorneys’ fees, and $580 in direct expenses.

On April 20, 2026, KAUSHIK RAMBHOTLA [#24079175], of Missouri City, received a one-year judgment of partially probated suspension effective May 1, 2026, with the first four months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that, in representing a client, Rambhotla neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of their legal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

Rambhotla violated Rules 1.01(b) (1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution.

On April 3, 2026, FERNANDO DUBOVE [#06145150], of Dallas, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2026, with the first 18 months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter in August 2023, the complainant paid Dubove $2,000 to represent her in an immigration matter; Dubove neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant by failing to perform legal services on behalf of the complainant; Dubove failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about a legal matter; Dubove revealed confidential client information of the complainant; and upon termination of representation, Dubove failed to refund the complainant advance payments of fees that had not been earned.

In the second matter, an evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in February 2023, the complainant paid Dubove $5,770 to represent her in an immigration matter; Dubove neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant by failing to perform legal services on behalf of the complainant; Dubove revealed confidential client information of the complainant; and upon termination of representation, Dubove failed to refund advance payments to the complainant of fees that had not been earned.

Dubove violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.05(b)(1)(ii), and 1.16(d). He was ordered to pay $7,770 in restitution and $2,515 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS

On March 23, 2026, MICHAEL ALAN BAIRD [#24078178], of Boerne, accepted a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Baird neglected client matters, failed to respond to client’s request for status information, failed to return unearned fees, and failed to respond to grievances in a timely manner.

Baird violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.16(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He agreed to pay $2,010 in restitution and $1,200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On April 9, 2026, DAVID LAWRENCE TRAYLOR [#00791810], of Dallas, received a judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that the complainant’s son hired Traylor on or about June 19, 2023, for representation in a criminal matter. The complainant’s son applied for and was granted a loan from a legal fee lending company in
the amount of $17,000 to pay Traylor’s fee. The $17,000 was paid directly to Traylor from the lending company. Traylor failed to hold the funds belonging to the complainant’s son that were in Traylor’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Traylor’s own property. Upon termination of representation, Traylor failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Traylor engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during the investigation of the complaint.

Traylor violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.16(d), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $7,000 in restitution to the Client Security Fund and $1,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PRIVATE REPRIMANDS

Listed here is a breakdown of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct violations for six attorneys, with the number in parentheses indicating the frequency of the violation. Please note that an attorney may be reprimanded for more than one rule violation.

1.01(b)(1)—In representing a client, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer (2).

1.03(a)—A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information (3).

1.03(b)—A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation (2).

1.15(b)—Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property (1).

1.16(d)—Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payments of fees that have not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation (3).

4.04(b)—Presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter (1).

8.01(b)—Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority (1).