Houston Family Law Corruption

Improper Influence - Wendy Burgower

It is the opinion of the father that Wendy Burgower, in addition to violating 3.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, she also committed the crime of improper influence according to Section 36.04 of the Texas Penal Code by improperly influencing Judge Bonnie Hellums to sign the October 22, 2009 order in the pending custody case as a result of her "ex parte" email communications and her visits to Judge Hellums' courtroom "ex parte" without the other attorneys present.

Pursuant to Section 36.04 of the Texas Penal Code, it is a crime to improperly influence a public servant in making a decision in a pending adjudicatory matter. 

Texas Penal Code 36.04 states the following:

§ 36.04. IMPROPER INFLUENCE.  (a) A person commits an
offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty,
argument, or other communication to any public servant who
exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory
proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the
proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those
authorized by law.
(b)  For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding"
means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of
government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges
of specified parties are determined.
(c)  An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

To support his opinion, the father references Patricia Harrison, an attorney in Brazos County, Texas that was appointed by the Court to be an be Attorney Ad Litem for a minor child.  

In December of 2005, Patricia Harrison plead guilty to the offense of Improper Influence under Section 36.04 of the Texas Penal Code as a result of unlawfully privately addressing a communication to a public servant, Brazos County Judge Randy Michel, with the intent to influence the outcome of a proceeding before Judge Randy Michel. Please click on this link to view Patricia Harrison's plea agreement.  Please click on this link to view Patricia Harrison's charges.

Patricia Harrison was also publicly reprimanded by the State Bar of Texas for committing Professional Misconduct by violating Rule 3.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by sending "ex parte" email communications to Judge Randy Michel with the intent to improperly influence the outcome.  Please click on this link to view the Judgment of Public Reprimand by the State Bar of Texas. 

In Alfred Isassi v. The State of Texas, the legal sufficiency of Improper Influence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Adi v. State, 94 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd). Under a hypothetically correct jury charge, Isassi committed the offense of improper influence if he: (1) privately addressed a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication; (2) to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding; (3) with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 36.04. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a) (Vernon 2003).

In re. Michael Easton, it may be a common misconception among laymen that they are free to engage in ex parte communications with a judge about a pending case. However, an officer of the court should have no such illusion. Ex parte communications with a court regarding a pending case are always improper and, in some instances, may constitute a criminal offense. See Tex.Pen.CodeAnn. § 36.04 (Vernon 2003); Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 3.05, reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. A (Vernon 2005) (Tex. State Bar R. art. X, § 9); Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2(B), reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. B (Vernon 2005).

Wendy Burgower was court-appointed by Judge Bonnie Hellums to be an Amicus Attorney and represent the best interests of a minor child, the father's daughter.  The court appointment of an Amicus Attorney is pursuant to the same Section 107 in the Texas Family Code as an Attorney Ad Litem, which was what Patricia Harrison was when she plead guilty to Improper Influence. 

Wendy Burgower and Patricia Harrison were both court-appointed attorneys representing minor children in civil cases.  The father believes that Wendy Burgower's actions in sending email communications to the Judge were exactly the same as those committed by Patricia Harrison.  They both sent email communications designed to improperly influence the Judge in a pending matter before that Judge's Court.  Wendy Burgower and Patricia Harrison, both court-appointed attorneys, excluded all of the other attorneys that were legally entitled to party to the communications.  Thus making the communications "ex parte" communications that are prohibited in the State of Texas pursuant to Rule 3.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. 

The father believes that Wendy Burgower sent "ex parte" emails to Judge Bonnie Hellums to improperly influence Judge Bonnie Hellums in signing the October 22, 2009 order to "cover up" her representation to the school principal that the injunction was valid when it had expired.  The father informed Wendy Burgower in his October 21, 2009 email to her that he would be going to the State Bar and as a result, the father believes Wendy Burgower desperately needed judge Hellums to sign the order because the order contained an EXTENSION of the August 28, 2009 injunction that had expired on September 29, 2009.  By improperly influencing the Judge to sign the order, it is the father's belief that Wendy Burgower would then be able inform the State Bar of Texas that it was the Judge's intent to extend the injunction.  That turned out to be exactly what happened.   

Questions:

(1) The father wants to know how is it possible that Wendy Burgower would not also be guilty of committing the same offense under Section 36.04 of the Texas Penal Code as Patricia Harrison was in 2005 when his belief is that Wendy Burgower sent "ex parte" emails to Judge Bonnie Hellums just as Patricia Harrison sent "ex parte" emails to Judge Randy Michel to improperly influence Judge Bonnie Hellums in a pending adjudicatory matter?

(2) The father wants to know how is it possible that Wendy Burgower would not also be found to have committed Professional Misconduct as Patricia Harrison was in 2006 for violating Rule 3.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct when his belief is that Wendy Burgower sent "ex parte" emails to Judge Bonnie Hellums just as Patricia Harrison sent "ex parte" emails to Judge Randy Michel to improperly influence Judge Bonnie Hellums in a pending adjudicatory matter?

DISCLAIMER:  It is important for all who read the information on this website to understand that these are the OPINIONS of the father based on the evidence provided.

If you have any comments that you would like to make or issues that you would like to discuss, please go to the father's blog at the following link.  Father's Blog.