Texas Bar Journal • July/August 2026

Disciplinary Actions

JUDICIAL ACTIONS

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

On April 23, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to RUBEN BECERRA, county judge, San Marcos, Hays County.

On April 23, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to STEVE DUBLE, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Place 2, Houston, Harris County.

On April 23, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to MELISSA MORRIS, judge, 263rd District Court, Houston, Harris County.

BODA

On April 1, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed judgment of public reprimand in the reciprocal discipline case against Houston attorney DANIEL J. PARISH [#15462980]. On October 10, 2025, an order of reprimand (by consent) was entered by the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board in Case No. 25-45-GA, styled Grievance Administrator, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Daniel J. Parish, P85014, in which the board approved the parties’ stipulation for consent order of discipline and ordered Parish reprimanded. Parish agreed he violated Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) and (c) (excessive contingency fee), 1.7(b) (conflict of interest), 6.5(a) (disrespectful and discourteous conduct), 8.4(a) (violation of or attempt to violate disciplinary rules), and 8.4(c) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) as well as Michigan Court Rules 8.121(a-c) (rules related to contingency fees), 9.104(1) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 9.104(2) (conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach), and 9.104(3) (conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals). BODA Case No. 72800.

On April 29, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered a judgment of disbarment in the reciprocal discipline case against Los Angeles, California, attorney AARON SPOLIN [#24118984]. On September 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of California issued an order in Case No. S292012 (State Bar Court Nos. SBC-24-O-30656; SBC-24-O-30844), styled In re Aaron Spolin on Discipline, disbarring Spolin. The order followed a stipulation of facts, conclusions of law, and disposition wherein Spolin stipulated that he violated Rules 1.4(b) (communication), 2.1 (failure to render candid advice), 7.1(a) (false or misleading communication about the lawyer’s services), and 1.5(a) (unconscionable fee) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and Section 6068(m) (communication) of the California Business and Professions Code. BODA Case No. 72210.

On April 29, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued a judgment in the appeal filed by Fort Worth attorney ANNETTE R. LOYD [#16731100]. The board affirmed the judgment of disbarment issued by an evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas on August 15, 2025. The evidentiary panel found that Loyd violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.06(b)(2) and (d) (conflict of interest), 1.09(a) (3) (conflict of interest with former client), and 8.04(a)(8) (failure to respond to grievance). BODA Case No. 72117.

SUSPENSIONS

On March 3, 2026, CHAD PETER VAN BRUNT [#24070784], of College Station, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension beginning on March 1, 2026. An investigatory panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that on January 19, 2018, Van Brunt was retained to file a writ of habeas corpus for a client. Van Brunt received a total of $16,000 to file the writ and agreed to represent the client until the disposition of the writ. Van Brunt failed to file a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of his client.

Van Brunt violated Rules 1.01(b) (1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.01(c), and 8.04(a) (3). He was ordered to pay $16,000 in restitution and $500 in attorney’s fees and costs.

On May 7, 2026, CLAYTEN HOWARD HEARRELL [#24059919], of Manvel, accepted a judgment of fully probated suspension effective May 11, 2026, and ending May 10, 2027. The 239th Brazoria County District Court found that Hearrell failed as a prosecutor in a criminal case to timely disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tended to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense, failed to disclose to the defense and to the court all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor.

Hearrell violated Rule 3.09(d). He was ordered to pay $446.43 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On May 6, 2026, BRYCE CARPENTER [#24123827], of Manor, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension beginning on May 7, 2026. An investigatory panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that in July 2021, Carpenter’s firm began associating with an attorney licensed in Texas (John Doe) and provided him with a firm phone number, a firm email, access to the firm’s Client Relationship Management software (CRM), and access to the firm’s IOLTA account. The panel also found that while associated with Carpenter’s firm, Doe took on personal injury claims arising in Missouri and associated local counsel for cases that required litigation.

In 2024, a Missouri resident hired Carpenter’s firm to represent her in a personal injury matter that arose out of an accident occurring in St. Louis, Missouri. Carpenter and Doe failed to notify the client that they were not licensed in Missouri. In addition, Carpenter and/or Doe settled the personal injury matter without the client’s consent and affixed the client’s signature to a full and final release of all claims without her permission.

Carpenter violated Rules 1.02(a) (2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 5.01(a), 5.01(c), 5.01(c)(2), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorney’s fees and costs.

PRIVATE REPRIMANDS

Listed here is a breakdown of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct violations for five 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 (3).

1.01(b)(2)—In representing a client, a lawyer shall not frequently fail to carry out completely the obligations that the lawyer wes to a client or clients (1).

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 (4).

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).

1.14(b)—Upon request by a client, failure to promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds (1).

1.14(c)—Failure to keep funds in which a client claimed an interest separate by the lawyer until there was

an accounting and severance of their interest (1).

1.15(a)—Failing to hold funds and other property belonging in whole or part to clients or third persons in a lawyer’s possession separate from the lawyer’s own property (3).

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).