Texas Bar Journal • September 2026

Disciplinary Actions

Judicial Actions

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

On June 3, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to STEPHANIE BOYD, judge of the 187th Criminal District Court, San Antonio, Bexar County.

On June 3, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to AMBER KING, justice of the peace, Mentone, Loving County.

On June 3, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to E. MASON MARTIN, visiting judge, Conroe, Montgomery County.

On July 2, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, in an Inquiry Concerning Honorable Donald J. Clark, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Columbus, Colorado County, Texas, issued an order of suspension with pay to DONALD JOSEPH CLARK, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Columbus, Colorado County. It is further ordered that this suspension shall remain in effect until the charges set forth in the indictment are dismissed, Judge Clark is acquitted of all charges in the indictment, or upon further order(s) of the commission. It is further ordered that the commission retains authority to reconsider this order should additional information not yet received warrant such action.

On July 2, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, in an Inquiry Concerning Honorable Brandon W. Barrera, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Kingsville, Kleberg County, Texas, issued an order of suspension without pay to BRANDON W. BARRERA, justice of the peace, Precinct 2, Kingsville, Kleberg County. It is further ordered that this suspension shall remain in effect until the charges set forth in the indictment are dismissed, Judge Barrera is acquitted of all charges in the indictment, or upon further order(s) of the commission. It is further ordered that the commission retains the authority to reconsider this order should additional information not yet received warrant such action.

On July 8, 2026, the Special Court of Review issued an opinion regarding In Re Inquiry Concerning the Honorable Natalia “Nata” Cornelio, CJC No. 25- 0319, finding that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct met its burden of proving that NATALIA “NATA” CORNELIO willfully violated Canons 3B(5), 3B(6), and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution and the Special Court of Review upheld the issuance of a public reprimand to Natalia “Nata” Cornelio.

On July 16, 2026, the Special Court of Review issued an opinion regarding In Re Inquiry Concerning the Honorable Amber Givens, CJC Nos. 20-1456, 22- 1710, 24-0224, and 24-0355, stating that when taken as a whole, the evidence before this Special Court of Review does not prove the violations alleged against AMBER GIVENS by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, it was concluded that the commission failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations in Charge 1, Charge II, (no Charge III was made), Charge IV, Charge V, or Charge VI. Having determined that the commission failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, each and every charge alleged in the charging document, the Special Court of Review dismissed the commission’s public reprimands and public admonitions.

BODA

On July 7, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued an order of dismissal, dismissing for want of prosecution the appeal filed by Austin attorney MICHAEL MCLANE NELSON JR. [#24099566]. On January 30, 2026, Evidentiary Panel 9-3 of the District 9 Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas issued a judgment of disbarment finding that, across six different matters, Nelson violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.01(b) (1) (neglect), 1.03(a) (communication), 1.15(d) (failure to return unearned fees,since renumbered as Rule 1.16(d)), and 8.04(a)(8) (failure to respond to grievance). BODA Case No. 72686.

On July 29, 2025, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued an order granting appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s brief and to dismiss appeal, dismissing the appeal filed by Dallas attorney LAUREN ASHLEY HARRIS [#24080932]. On February 7, 2023, Evidentiary Panel 14-2 of the District 14 Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas issued a judgment of partially probated suspension finding that Harris violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.01(b)(1) (neglect) and 1.03(a) (communication). Harris appealed the board’s order to the Supreme Court of Texas in Case No. 25-0700. On May 29, 2026, the court affirmed the board’s order, and on July 6, 2026, the court dismissed Harris’ motion for rehearing. BODA Case No. 67843.

Reversal

On June 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in William W. Ruth v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, in Case No. 24-0613, reversing a five-year active suspension issued on September 15, 2022, in Case No. 16965 before the 216th District Court, Gillespie County, Texas. The disciplinary case was on appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas on a petition for review from the decision of the 4th Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment (04-22-00796-CV, 696 SW3d 233, 06-20-24).

Resignations

On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of CYNTHIA M. MARTINEZ [#24049398], of Houston. At the time of Martinez’s resignation, there were three pending disciplinary actions alleging that, in representing clients, she neglected legal matters entrusted to her, failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the statuses of their legalmatters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Martinez also failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to a client that were in her possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, failed to keep client funds in a separate trust account, and, upon receiving funds in which her clients had an interest, failed to promptly notify the client and failed to deliver to the client any funds they were entitled to receive. Martinez allegedly violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a)(now 1.15(a)), and 1.15(b).

On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of ADAM DEAN HOFFMAN [#24046083], of Nebraska. At the time of Hoffman’s resignation, one disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. The proceeding related to the judgment of conviction entered on April 27, 2026, in Case No. 2026-707-C2, styled State of Texas v. Adam Dean Hoffman, in the 54th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas, wherein Hoffman pleaded guilty to two criminal misdemeanors (indecent assault and display harmful material to a minor) and was sentenced to serve 60 days in county jail.

Hoffman allegedly violated Rule 8.04(a)(2).

On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of JENNIFER LEE ANDERSON [#24082628], of San Antonio. At the time of her resignation, there were three grievances pending, alleging Anderson neglected a client matter, failed to hold client or a third person funds separate from her own property, failed to safeguard such property, failed to promptly notify the client or a third person upon receiving funds in which they held an interest, failed to promptly deliver client and third person funds that they were entitled to receive, failed to promptly render a full accounting when requested regarding such property, and failed to keep such property separate until there was an accounting and severance of their interest. Anderson unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of a case and unreasonably delayed the resolution of a matter, threatened to present civil charges against a complainant solely to prevent participation by the complainant in a grievance, knowingly made false statements of material fact regarding underlying events, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Anderson allegedly violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.14(a) (now 1.15(a)), 1.14(b) (now 1.15(b)), 1.14(c) (now 1.15(c)), 3.02, 4.04(b)(2), 8.01(a), and 8.04(a)(3).

On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of JASSER ABRAHAM AWAD [#24075356], of Austin. At the time of Awad’s resignation, he had one disciplinary complaint pending against him. In the pending complaint, the complainant indicated he hired Awad in 2024 to pursue a medical malpractice claim. The complainant claimed Awad told him he had filed the lawsuit but failed to provide him with any supporting documentation. The complainant also claimed Awad subsequently told him he had negotiated a settlement for $1.75 million but again failed to provide him with any supporting documentation. The complainant alleged that after waiting months for a settlement check, Awad finally wrote him a check for $1.75 million in February 2025. However, the bank told him that Awad’s account had insufficient funds to cover the check. The complainant then claimed Awad told him that opposing counsel had instructed him to send the settlement funds back. The complainant subsequently learned that Awad never filed the lawsuit and never obtained a settlement agreement. Awad also failed to timely respond to the complaint pursuant to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Awad allegedly violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.16(d), 8.04(a) (3), and 8.04(a)(8).

On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of CHARLES DAVID JONES [#24048578], of Arlington. At the time of Jones’ resignation, there were three disciplinary actions pending against him. In the first matter, on or about July 17, 2023, the complainant hired Jones in a real estate matter to help her acquire ownership of a home she purchased but which she subsequently learned that the seller did not own the home. The complainant paid Jones a total of $3,000 for his representation. During the pendency of the matter, Jones failed to respond to the complainant’s reasonable requests for information, despite the complainant’s efforts to reach Jones by email, phone, certified mail, and by going to his office. Although Jones determined the complainant had been the victim of real estate fraud and believed there was no remedy to the complainant’s situation, he failed to inform the complainant of this, failed to consult another lawyer competent to handle the matter, and failed to otherwise seek advice or assistance. From in or about April 2024 to in or about January 2025, Jones repeatedly told the complainant he was working on setting up a mediation, which was deceitful, as Jones never made any efforts to set up a mediation based on his belief that the complainant’s matter could not be remedied. Jones continued in his representation and, thereby, neglected the complainant’s matter and failed to carry out any obligations he owed to her. The complainant terminated Jones’ representation on or about April 17, 2025, and requested a refund of the monies she paid Jones. Jones failed to refund the unearned fees. Jones failed to respond to the grievance.

In the second matter, Jones neglected to perform work and failed to file an answer in the case. As a result, a default judgment was entered against the complainants. Jones failed to explain the legal matter to the complainants to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to make informed decisions about the representation. Jones refunded the $2,500 fee to the complainant after the grievance was filed. Jones failed to respond to the grievance.

In the third matter, Jones failed to respond to the grievance.

Jones allegedly violated Rules 1.01(a)(1), 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.16(d), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8).

Suspensions

On June 1, 2026, JEFFERY CHARLES KING [#24038039], of Dallas, received a 36-month probated suspension effective May 14, 2026. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on January 14, 2020, King entered into an agreed judgment of public reprimand. In the judgment, King was ordered to pay $30,000 in restitution and to complete five additional hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in the area of military law within six months of the signed agreed judgment. King violated this disciplinary judgment by failing to pay $20,000 in restitution and by failing to complete 30 minutes of CLE. King failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. King did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so.

King violated Rules 8.04(a)(7) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $7,400 in restitution and $3,692.50 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On June 16, 2026, LEE BARRETT WESTMORELAND [#24001113], of Nacogdoches, received a one-year partially probated suspension beginning August 1, 2026, and ending on July 31, 2027, with the first 30 days actively suspended and the probated suspension beginning on September 1, 2026, and ending on July 31, 2027. An evidentiary panel of the District 2 Grievance Committee found that on September 29, 2023, the complainant filed a grievance against Westmoreland. Thereafter, Westmoreland failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Westmoreland did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so.

Westmoreland violated Rule 8.04(a) (8). He was ordered to pay $1,922.50 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On June 24, 2026, LAUREN ASHLEY HARRIS [#24080932], of Dallas, received a 12-month partially probated suspension effective June 30, 2026, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Harris was engaged in April 2019 to represent the complainant and to represent the complainant’s sister as defendant and counter-plaintiff in a civil suit. In representing the complainant’s sister and the complainant, Harris neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to pursue a matter with reasonable diligence and promptness, to perform work on the case, and to appear for a trial. Harris failed to explain the civil matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant’s sister and the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Harris violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(b). She was ordered to pay $18,109.38 in attorney’s fees and $635 in direct expenses.

June 29, 2026, ANTON PAUL HAJEK III [#08716630], of San Antonio, accepted a 12-month fully probated suspension effective July 1, 2026. An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Hajek failed to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, knowingly revealed confidential client information of a former client, and represented that client when the representation of that client reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by his own interests.

Hajek violated Rules 1.03(b), 1.05(b)(1)(ii), and 1.06(b)(2). He agreed to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On June 29, 2026, BETHEL TEWOLDE ZEHAIE [#24073791], of Arlington, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective July 1, 2026, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that in the first matter, Zehaie represented the complainant in a criminal matter. Zehaie failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his criminal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. Zehaie failed to explain the criminal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Zehaie failed to respond to the grievance.

In the second matter, Zehaie was hired to represent the complainant’s son in multiple criminal cases. Zehaie failed to respond to the grievance.

In the third matter, Zehaie represented the complainant to expunge a criminal conviction. In representing the complainant, Zehaie neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to perform any legal work on the criminal matter. Zehaie failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her criminal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. Zehaie failed to explain the criminal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Upon termination of representation, Zehaie failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Zehaie failed to decline representing the complainant and/or failed to withdraw from the representation as Zehaie’s physical, mental, or psychological condition materially impaired Zehaie’s fitness to represent the complainant. Zehaie failed to respond to the grievance.

In the fourth matter, Zehaie represented a client in a divorce matter pending in the complainant’s court. Zehaie neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to appear in court on January 28, 2025, for a final trial. In representing the client, Zehaie frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations Zehaie owed. Zehaie failed to decline representing the client and/or failed to withdraw from the representation as Zehaie’s physical, mental, or psychological condition materially impaired Zehaie’s fitness to represent her client.

In the fifth matter, Zehaie represented the complainant on a driving under the influence (DUI) defense. In representing the complainant, Zehaie neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by not doing anything on the case. Zehaie failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his criminal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about his criminal matter. Upon termination of representation, Zehaie failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Zehaie failed to respond to the grievance.

Zehaie violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.16(a)(2), 1.16(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $3,500 in restitution and $1,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On July 15, 2026, MICHAEL ROY CASARETTO [#24071019], of Marlin, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension beginning August 1, 2026. An evidentiary panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that Casaretto was appointed to represent a defendant on criminal charges pending in Falls County. On July 15, 2024, the defendant submitted a complaint to the State Bar of Texas against Casaretto arising from that representation. On May 14, 2025, Casaretto was personally served with notice of the complaint. Casaretto was directed to furnish a written response to the complaint within 30 days but failed to furnish a response as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Casaretto violated Rule 8.04(a) (8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

On July 13, 2026, NICHOLAS RUSSELL SMITH [#24063226], of Rockwall, received a 30-month fully probated suspension effective August 1, 2026, and ending on January 31, 2029. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Smith in August 2023 and paid $1,000 for preparation of a small estate affidavit that the complainant would then file himself. Smith neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by not adequately preparing the affidavit or remedying it. Smith did not keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and did not promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Smith did not deposit and/or hold legal fees in a trust account and or client funds separate until fully earned.

Smith violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(a) (formerly 1.14(a)), and 1.15(c) (formerly 1.14(c)). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $325 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

Public Reprimands

On June 1, 2026, DEATRIA MECHELE NORFLEET [#15078100], of Fort Worth, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Norfleet to represent her on a criminal charge in Collin County and on a child custody matter in Dallas County. Norfleet failed to safeguard funds paid by the complainant in connection with the representation. Norfleet was under a probated disciplinary suspension from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2023. By failing to safeguard funds in this matter, Norfleet violated her prior disciplinary judgment.

Norfleet violated Rules 1.14(a) (now 1.15(a)) and 8.04(a)(7). She was ordered to pay $750 in attorney’s fees and costs.

On June 4, 2026, RAY ANTHONY GONZALEZ [#24032242], of Corpus Christi, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Gonzalez charged an unconscionable fee and failed to deliver client funds.

Gonzalez violated Rules 1.04(a) and 1.14(b) (now 1.15(b)). He agreed to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,200 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On June 11, 2026, JOHN EDWARD COONLEY II [#24090041], of Austin, agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that a client hired Coonley on June 15, 2023, to help with a business equity/business acquisition matter and paid Coonley a $2,500 retainer. At the time, the client told Coonley that she was unsure she would need his services. Within a few weeks the complainant notified Coonley that she would not need his services and requested a refund. The complainant attempted to contact Coonley more than a dozen times over the next year by email, phone, voicemail, and regular mail to obtain her refund. The complainant never received any response from Coonley. Coonley did not provide the client with an accounting of funds. Coonley did not timely provide the client with a refund when the client requested it.

Coonley violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.15(b), and 1.16(d). Coonley was ordered to pay $500 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

On June 13, 2026, LOTT JOSEPH BROOKS III [#03070750], of Houston, received a judgment of public reprimand effective June 13, 2026. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Brooks failed to provide a timely response to this grievance as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Brooks did not assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to timely file a response.

Brooks violated Rule 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,450 in attorney’s fees and costs.

On July 11, 2026, CYNTHIA L. WILLIAMS [#24003359], of Bedford, received a judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that on or about September 2, 2022, the complainant hired Williams to represent her in an estate matter and paid $6,000 for the completion of items listed in the engagement letter, including trust documents. Williams failed to complete the trust documents, failed to communicate with the complainant about the status of her documents, and failed to respond to her reasonable requests for information about the status of the items. Williams was unfamiliar with some of the language for the trust documents she was drafting. Upon request by the complainant, Williams failed to provide an accounting of the work done and failed to return unearned fees and the client file. Furthermore, Williams failed to respond to the grievance.

Williams violated Rules 1.01(a), 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d) (now Rule 1.16(d)), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $2,835 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On July 6, 2026, LINDSEY JORDAN WILSON [#24095481], of Austin, agreed to a judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Wilson for representation in a divorce case involving a child. In representing the complainant, Wilson failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Wilson also engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation concerning attorney’s fees that were assessed against the complainant after the filing of motions to compel discovery when Wilson informed the complainant that she had paid the fees.

Wilson violated Rules 1.03(b) and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $3,072 in restitution and $750 in attorney’s fees and costs.

On June 18, 2026, REGINA MARISA COMPIA RICHARDSON [#24029223], of Edinburg, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found Richardson neglected the client matter, failed to timely provide the client with a copy of his file, and failed to timely provide the client an accounting.

Richardson violated Rule 1.01(b) (1), 1.15(b), and 1.16(d). She agreed to pay $1,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

Private Reprimands

Listed below is a breakdown of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct violations involving six attorneys. The number in parentheses indicates how many times each rule was violated. An attorney may be reprimanded for violating more than one rule.

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

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

1.02(b)—A lawyer may limit the scope, objectives, and general methods of the representation if the client consents after consultation (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 (2).

1.09(a)—Representing a person in a substantially related matter in which the person’s interests were materially adverse to the interests of a former client, without getting the former client’s consent (1).

1.15(a)—A lawyer shall hold funds and other property belonging in whole or in part to clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property. Such funds shall be kept in a separate account, designated as a trust or escrow account, maintained in the state where the lawyer’s office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person. Other client property shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of such account funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the representation (3).

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 (2).

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 (2).

8.04(a)(3)—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (1).