October 12, 2000

Briefing Clerk Perks

With its credibility again marred by appearances that private money could be influencing its proceedings, the Texas Supreme Court is busy defending—rather than ending—its latest errant practice.

Texas Lawyer broke a September 11 story about how large law firms with a steady stream of Texas Supreme Court cases pay subsidies to the court’s clerks. This practice appears to violate the plain language of the “Bribery and Corrupt Influence” chapter of the state penal code.

Hiring partners at Vinson & Elkins and Baker & Botts (firms that brought more than 300 legal issues before the court in recent years) acknowledge that they have been “subsidizing” individual clerks with $45,000 prospective-employment bonuses. This may constitute criminal misconduct, according to the Travis County Attorney.

Section 36.08(e) of the penal code says that a judicial employee commits an offense if he or she “solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit” from a person with an interest in a matter before the tribunal. Section 36.09 prohibits firms from offering such illegal benefits.

Supreme Court justices insist that clerks do not work on cases involving their known future employers. Apparently for this reason, Chief Justice Tom Phillips says that the private subsidies of his court’s clerks pass legal muster. Yet the clear intent of the penal code is to shield the public from even the appearance that a case could be thrown by private payments to court employees.

The court, of all entities, should not circumvent the clear intent of state law. Instead it should immediately ban all privately funded clerk perks. It also should reveal every perk received by every clerk and disclose each case that these clerks have been removed from.

The court need not choose between the interests of its clerks and those of the public. Ending private subsidies would not prevent the court from seeking higher publicly funded clerk salaries. But allowing judicial employees to keep taking handouts from law firms with cases before the court further damages our judiciary’s tattered reputation.
 

September Dollar Docket
Cases heard by the Texas Supreme Court in September and the corresponding contributions 
to justices from the parties and/or attorneys.
 
September 6, 2000
Bally Total Fitness Corp.v.
 $ 11,150
Jackson
$ 0
 
American Home Products v.
$ 51,455
Clark
$ 41,500
 
Gilbert v.
$ 0
El Paso County Hospital Dist
$ 0
 
September 13, 2000
San Antonio Area Found. v.
$ 15,029
Lang
$ 0
 
City of Harlingen v.
$ 3,172
Sharboneau
$ 0
 
In re Canales.  
consolidated with  
In re County of Jim Wells
$ 2,650
 
September 20, 2000
St. Joseph Hospital v.
$ 203,605
Wolff 
$ 1,000
 
TX Dept. Public Safety v.
$ 0
Petta 
$ 100
 
Texas A&M v.  
Dalmac Construction  
consolidated with
General Services Comm'n v.  
Little-Tex Insulation   
consolidated with
TX Dept. of Transportation v.  
Aer-Aerotron 
$ 365,555
 
Total for September: 
$ 695,216

 

 


 
 

Home | Dollar Dockets