Texas Bar Journal • March 2025

Professionalism and the Texas Lawyer’s Creed

‘Please consider this email thread my attempt to confer.’

Written by William G. Hagans

Thirty-five years ago, the Texas Lawyer’s Creed gave Texas litigators direction on a first step toward resolving disputes: “I will attempt to resolve by agreement my objections to matters contained in pleadings and discovery requests and responses.”

Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure codified the aspirational goals of the creed, requiring lawyers to make reasonable agreements and requiring all discovery motions to include a certificate of conference.

As certificates of conference began to lack any meaningful information, beyond a statement that “the undersigned has attempted” to confer or to reach agreements, individual judges began expanding on the conference requirements. As one example, Hon. Mike Engelhart—judge of the 151st District Court in Houston from 2009 to 2024—saw such a disappointing trend of lawyers meeting and speaking to each other for the first time as they approached his bench that he created explicit direction to lawyers that their certificates of conference must include detail about all things related to the conference, or risk being dropped from the hearing docket sua sponte. Engelhart believes that, because of this policy, he began hearing more substantive issues rather than disputes that should have been resolved.¹

There is only so much that judges can do, though. Inherent authority to control their dockets notwithstanding, courts of appeals are loathe to affirm meaningful sanctions when a litigant fails to follow orders to confer.² The onus should not be on our jurists to do what we lawyers know to be both the right thing to do and what is in our best interest.³

Meaningful conferences, especially on discovery disputes, and attempts to find a workable middle ground saves an incredible amount of attorney time. So why do so many litigators not participate in them? Certainly, a changing political landscape with, at times, less decorum than in the past may play a part. But another major driver may be that many are taking on more clients and cases than they have time to fully handle. Well-meaning lawyers may hit a cycle of just trying to get from one fire to the next and see meaningful conferences as time that they do not have. Every litigator also has experiences where they feel they have wasted significant time trying to confer with contrarian opposing counsel.

“E-mail has been the biggest impairment to professionalism since the creed was written,” said Hon. Andrew Edison, U.S. magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas. “It’s easy to fire off an e-mail without any real contemplation and then you end up defending some extreme position you took early on.” “More often than not,” Edison said, “when I force lawyers into a Zoom meeting room or attorney-ready room, the conflict they have spent so much time writing e-mails and letters about suddenly is resolved without any judicial rulings or input.”

As we approach the beginning of a new bar year, all Texas litigators are encouraged to add meaningful and thoughtful conferences to their customary practice. Take an opposing lawyer to lunch at the beginning of a case and get to know them. Read over the Texas Lawyer’s Creed and think about ways you can work together. As the creed encourages us: “Professionalism requires more than merely avoiding the violation of laws and rules. I am committed to this Creed for no other reason than it is right.”

WILLIAM G. HAGANS is the chair of the State Bar of Texas Professionalism Committee. Certified in personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, he is a trial lawyer in Houston, where he handles both commercial and serious personal injury and death cases. Hagans is also chair-elect of the Fellows of the Texas Bar Foundation.