Texas Bar Journal • October 2026

Disciplinary Actions

Judicial Actions

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

On August 25, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition to BARRY GREEN, judge of the Municipal Court, Decatur, Wise County.

On August 25, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to FRANCISCO “FRANK” GUTIERREZ, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Place 1, Lubbock, Lubbock County.

On August 25, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition to TRAVIS E. KITCHENS JR., judge of the 258th Judicial District, Livingston, Polk County.

On August 26, 2026, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, in an Inquiry Concerning Honorable Terry Johnson, Midland County Judge, Midland, Midland County, Texas, issued an order of suspension with pay to TERRY JOHNSON, judge of Midland County, Midland, Midland County. It was further ordered that this suspension shall remain in effect until the charges set forth in the indictment are dismissed, Johnson is acquitted of all charges in the indictment, or upon further order(s) of the commission. The commission retains authority to reconsider this order should additional information not yet received warrant such action.

BODA

On July 29, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed judgment of public reprimand in the reciprocal discipline case against Arlington attorney RICHARD GARDNER ELDREDGE [#24072085]. On < February 3, 2026, a final order was entered in Proceeding No. D2026-06, styled In the Matter of Richard G. Eldredge, United States Patent and Trademark Office, before the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in which Eldredge, by agreement, received a public reprimand. Eldredge agreed he violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.103 (diligence) and 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). BODA Case No. 73580.

On July 31, 2026, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney LANCE HAC NGUYEN [#24010266]. On February 10, 2026, a judgment of conviction by jury was entered in Cause No. 185502501010, styled The State of Texas v. Nguyen, Lance, in the 185th District Court, Harris County, Texas, wherein the respondent was found guilty of sexual assault in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(1), a second-degree felony. This offense is an intentional and serious crime as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Nguyen was sentenced to eight years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for eight years of community supervision. Nguyen has appealed his criminal conviction to the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment if the criminal conviction becomes final. BODA Case No. 72644.

Disbarment

On April 6, 2026, JASON D.
ROWE [#24073538], of Houston, received a judgment of disbarment, effective April 1, 2026. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Rowe, in representing his client, neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain the legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Rowe also failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to his client separate from his own property and failed to keep the funds in a separate account, designated as a “trust” or “escrow” account, upon receiving funds in which his client has an interest, failed to promptly notify the client, and failed to promptly deliver to the client any funds that the client was entitled to receive and, upon request by his client, failed to promptly render a full accounting. Further, Rowe was found to have engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required.

Rowe violated Rules 1.01(b) (1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $900,000 in restitution and $7,900 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Suspensions

On June 24, 2026, JENNIFER ANN
ZARKA [#24073769], of Jacksonville, Florida, accepted a three-year fully probated suspension effective July 1, 2026. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Zarka failed to keep her client reasonably informed or comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to properly safeguard client property, and failed to protect a client’s interests upon termination of the representation. Zarka violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), and 5.01(b). She agreed to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On July 20, 2026, RAMON BALDEMAR SERNA [#24088392], of Universal City, accepted a nine-month fully probated suspension effective August 1, 2026. An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Serna neglected client matters, failed to keep a client reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, failed to hold and safeguard clients’ funds in a separate trust account, and failed to take steps reasonably practicable in order to timely surrender the client file and any unearned fees that the clients were entitled to receive.

Serna violated Rules 1.01(b) (1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(a), and 1.16(d). He agreed to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses

On July 31, 2026, BARRY L. EFRON [#00793003], of San Antonio, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective August 1, 2026. An investigatory panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Efron failed to keep a client reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, failed to timely deliver a client file that was entitled, and failed to respond to the grievance in a timely manner.

Efron violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He agreed to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On August 10, 2026, GREGNNECIA JAVENICK DARRETT [#24093809], of Dallas, agreed to an 18-month fully probated suspension beginning August 15, 2026, and ending on February 14, 2028. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that the complainant retained Darrett and paid a flat fee of $5,950 for limited representation in a family law matter. In representing the complainant, Darrett neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to timely file required disclosures, as well as witness and exhibit lists. Darrett failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his family matter and promptly comply with the complainant’s reasonable requests for information. In connection with the complainant’s family matter, Darrett knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.

Darrett violated Rules 1.01(b) (1), 1.03(a), and 3.03(a)(1). She was ordered to pay $750 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On August 13, 2026, JOHN DOUGLAS GOYEN [#90001818], of Addison, agreed to a four-year partially probated suspension effective September 1, 2026, with the first two years actively suspended and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about September 9, 2022, the complainant hired Goyen to represent her in a personal injury matter. In representing the complainant, Goyen neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, in that he failed to submit the complainant’s medical documentation in support of her claims for compensation or perform any other work on the case after filing it. In representing the complainant, Goyen frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations Goyen owed to the complainant by failing to respond to discovery requests and provide mandatory disclosures and failing to appear for a hearing on the opposing party’s motion to dismiss, which resulted in the complainant’s case being dismissed. Goyen failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her personal injury matter by failing to accurately inform the complainant when her case was filed, failing to respond to the complainant’s reasonable attempts to contact Goyen by multiple means, failing to provide any information to the complainant after her case was filed, and failing to inform the complainant of the dismissal of her case. Goyen failed to explain the personal injury matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation by failing to inform the complainant when the case was filed and by failing to inform the complainant when the opposing party answered, made discovery requests, filed a motion to dismiss, and had a hearing on the motion. Goyen failed to hold funds belonging to the complainant that were in Goyen’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Goyen’s own property. Upon receiving personal injury protection (PIP) funds in which the complainant had an interest, Goyen failed to promptly notify the complainant and failed to deliver any of the funds to the complainant. Goyen failed to provide an itemized invoice and the client file to the complainant, despite the complainant’s written request when she terminated Goyen’s representation. Goyen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Goyen 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 and did not, in good faith, timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so. Goyen’s failure to timely furnish a response to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel was a violation of Goyen’s terms of probation in his agreed judgment of probated suspension in Case No. 202401674.

Goyen violated Rules 1.01(b) (1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), 8.04(a) (3), 8.04(a)(7), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $22,503 in restitution and $750 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

On August 18, 2026, JOSE SALVADOR TELLEZ [#19764760], of Laredo, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension. The 49th Judicial District Court of Webb County found that Tellez committed professional misconduct by violating Texas Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.04 (a)(8) [A lawyer shall not fail to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or a district grievance committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so].

Tellez was ordered to pay $1,800 in attorney’s fees and direct expenses.

Public Reprimands

On July 18, 2026, REGINA MARISA COMPIA RICHARDSON [#24029223], of Edinburg, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that 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 Rules 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 four 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 (4).

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).

1.15(a)(3)—A lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw, except as stated in paragraph (c), from representation of a client, if: (3) a lawyer is discharged, with or without good cause (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 (2).

8.04(a)(8)—A lawyer shall not fail to timely furnish to a district grievance committee a response unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so (1).