State Bar of Texas Grievances
The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC) are a set of rules put in place by the Supreme Court of Texas which governs the conduct of all attorneys in Texas. Please click on this link to view the TDRPC.
If someone suspects that an attorney violates any of the TDRPC, then a grievance can be filed against that attorney with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) of the State Bar of Texas. If CDC determines that the grievance alleges a rule of TDRPC has been violated, the CDC will launch an investigation.
Upon launching the investigation, the CDC provides the offending attorney with a copy of the grievance and requests a response from the offending attorney with their version of the facts.
The CDC of the State Bar of Texas is considered to be a Tribunal and the same rules of candor, Rule 3.03 TDRPC and honesty, Rule 8.04 TDRPC apply to documents that are provided to the CDC of the State Bar of Texas by the offending attorney.
In his October 21, 2009 email to Wendy Burgower regarding Wendy Burgower's representation to his daughter's school principal, the father informed Wendy Burgower that he would making an inquiry with the State Bar to determine if her representation was appropriate.
In November 2009, the father filed a grievance against Wendy Burgower alleging that Wendy Burgower violated Rule 4.01 of the TDRPC for misrepresenting the validity of a court order to his daughter's school principal on October 21, 2009.
Rule 4.01 of the TDRPC states the following:
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person;
On December 21, 2009, Wendy Burgower sent her Response to the father's grievance to the CDC of the State Bar. Please click on this link to view the Response.
Wendy Burgower states in her 12-21-09 Response to the CDC of the State Bar on Page 3 that, "the Court affirms this position in its entry of the current order."Please click on this link to view the Response.
Wendy Burgower goes on to say in her 12-21-09 Response to the CDC of the State Bar on Page 3 that, "School personnel did call me and ask my opinion as to whether the order was in effect after September 29, 2009. I did tell the school representative that in my opinion (which was later confirmed by Judge Hellums)" Please click on this link to view Wendy Burgower's 12-21-10 Response.
Wendy Burgower failed to inform that CDC of the State Bar in her 12-21-09 Response that on October 22, 2009, the day that Judge Hellums signed the order containing the extension of the injunction, that Wendy Burgower forwarded the father's October 21, 2009 email to Judge Hellums only saying to Judge Hellums that, "Judge - this is immediate. I will come to your courtroom this morning."
Wendy Burgower also failed to inform the CDC of the State Bar that she went to Judge Hellums courtroom on the morning of October 22, 2009, the day that Judge Hellums signed the order containing the extension of the injunction. The father believes that Wendy Burgower went to Judge Hellums' courtroom by herself and without telling any of the other attorneys involved on the case so that she could conceal that she was at the courthouse with the intent to improperly influence Judge Hellums to sign an order that Wendy Burgower knew was not supported by evidence and contained many false representations. Please click this link to view the 2-11-09 hearing transcript, Page 14, Lines 24-25 & Page 15, Lines 1-2.
The father believes that it was not the Court's intent to extend the injunction, as Wendy Burgower stated it was in her 12-21-10 Response to the State Bar. If it was the Court's intent to extend the injunction, the Court would have ordered the extension of the injunction at the hearing on September 29, 2009. The father believes that the truth is that the Court never mentioned the injunction at the hearing on September 29, 2009 and the only reason it was in the 2nd draft of the proposed order is because the father strongly believes that Mary Olga Lovett lied to the Court by intentionally filing a draft of an order she knew contained false representations.
The father believes that the only reason the Court extended the injunction and signed the October 22, 2009 order is because of the improper influence of Wendy Burgower's "ex parte" email by forwarding the father's October 21, 2009 email to Judge Hellums and Wendy Burgower's "ex parte" appearance at Judge Hellums' courtroom on October 22, 2009 in getting Judge Hellums to sign the order and provide the necessary cover for what the father believes is her knowing misrepresentation to his daughter's school principal.
The father believes that Wendy Burgower intentionally failed to provide very important facts to the CDC of the State Bar of Texas in an attempt to conceal her improper "ex parte" actions with Judge Bonnie Hellums on October 22, 2009 which the father believes resulted in Wendy Burgower improperly influencing the outcome in a pending case.
The important facts that Wendy Burgower did not provide to the CDC of the State Bar of Texas were the October 22, 2009 "ex parte" email that Wendy Burgower sent to Judge Bonnie Hellums and the fact that Wendy Burgower went to Judge Bonnie Hellums courtroom "ex parte" on October 22, 2009 were instrumental in Judge Bonnie Hellums signing the October 22, 2009 order. Please see 2-11-10 hearing transcript, Page 14, Lines 11-23.
The father strongly believes that Wendy Burgower's "ex parte" communications with Judge Bonnie Hellums on October 22, 2009 improperly influenced Judge Bonnie Hellums in signing the October 22, 2009 order and this was information that Wendy Burgower was obligated to provide to the CDC of the State Bar of Texas pursuant to Rule 3.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
The father strongly believes that, as a result of Wendy Burgower not providing the CDC of the State Bar of Texas with the facts pertaining to her "ex parte" communications with Judge Hellums on October 22, 2009, that Wendy Burgower violated Rule 3.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Wendy Burgower has made many references to being vindicated by the State Bar of Texas. Please click on the following link to view one of Wendy Burgower's emails that she sent on July 13, 2010 containing her being vindicated. 7-13-10 Email from Wendy Burgower.
Question:
(1) How is it possible that Wendy Burgower can claim that she was vindicated by the State Bar of Texas when Wendy Burgower intentionally withheld providing the State Bar of Texas with the facts related to how the October 22, 2009 order got signed by Judge Bonnie Hellums?
(2) How can the State Bar of Texas legitimately vindicate Wendy Burgower when the facts related to how the October 22, 2009 order got signed were intentionally withheld from the State Bar of Texas?
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.