Democracy Created, Supported, and Protected by the Constitution of the United States Must Be Defended

January 25th, 2012

Democracy created, supported, and protected by the Constitution of the United States must be defended regardless of whether you are a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or whether you align yourself with any other party supporting your personal beliefs. We must all protect the core values that have flowed since America began from our freedoms protected by separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. Each branch protects us from the tyranny that can be imposed upon us by one, absent the beautiful balance over time by each branch of government gatekeeping for the other branches.

As an associate member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), I am deeply concerned that many expected and prominent contenders in the 2012 elections have stated that if elected they will disregard Supreme Court rulings with which they disagreed, eliminating entire courts removing judges from office if they dislike their rulings, and will direct United States Marshals to apprehend judges and compel them to submit to congressional questions about their rulings.

The TEX-ABOTA opposes all attempts to undermine the independence and integrity of the judicial and has therefore passed a resolution regarding this issue. The resolution of the Texas Chapters of American Board of Trial Advocates has resolved as follows:

The Texas Chapters of American Board of Trial Advocates is strongly opposed to any proposed governmental action or policy that would undermine the constitutional structure of three separate and independent branches of government, including any governmental action or policy that would: (1) ignore Supreme Court rulings; (2) eliminate courts or remove judges from office because of their rulings; and (3) force judges to face congressional questioning regarding their rulings.

Every extremely conservative or irrevocably committed left-winged person in this country has at one time or another, from their prospective, extremely benefited or felt personal extreme detriment from a ruling of a county, state, federal district court, federal district appellate court, or the Supreme Court of the United States.

Can you imagine how an ultraconservative person would feel if a left-wing Democratic president undermined a Supreme Court ruling that abortion is illegal?

Can you imagine how a left-wing democrat would feel if a conservative president could undermine and reverse a Supreme Court ruling that employees have no rights of recovery when terminated from employment due to racial or gender related discrimination?

The issue to consider is not what a court orders, renders, or adjudicates on a particular matter of concern to you in your life. The issue is whether we should have courts of law or a government whose arbitrary decisions controls your life depending on who happens to be in power at any particular time in the future.

For my part, I’m going to take my chances with democracy based on checks and balances as opposed to an existential political belief of any given ruler, executive, or body based on one particular moment in time.

Mark Nacol, Attorney
Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Nacol Law Firm P.C.

Texas HB No. 274 Omnibus Tort Reform Bill Passes

June 8th, 2011

Lawsuits are expensive, too expensive for many people.  Even when you know you are right, most average people and small businesses cannot afford to pursue their rights under contracts or seek remedies for other legal wrongs.  When the legal costs and attorneys’ fees surpass the potential recovery, the average person makes the decision to take their losses and move on.

Under new legislation passed by the Texas legislature, the Texas Supreme Court has been directed to adopt new rules to address the high costs and long time periods affecting lawsuits involving damages of $100,000.00 or less.  The new law appears to create a new class of law suits under the title of “Expedited Civil Actions.”

The law requires the Supreme Court to adopt rules: (1) to lower discovery costs and (2) to expedite procedures in these cases involving smaller monetary damages. 

In adopting new rules, the Supreme Court cannot adopt rules that conflict with existing provisions of the Texas family code, property code, tax code or chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Until the Supreme Court adopts the new rules, many questions remain unanswered.  However, the Court may provide some relief to small business people and individuals who suffer damages under $100,000.00.

Another aspect of HB 274 concerns the payment of litigation costs when a settlement offer is made.  Under the new law, litigation costs may be awarded when a qualifying settlement offer is rejected.

In order to qualify for the award of litigation costs, the defendant must make a qualifying settlement offer.  The law provides that the settlement offer must: (1) be in writing; (2) indentify that the offer is being made under chapter 42.003 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code; (3) state the terms of the settlement; (4) contain a deadline for acceptance; and (5) be served on all parties to whom the settlement offer is made.

If the plaintiff rejects a qualifying settlement offer, litigation costs may be awarded under the current 80/20 statutory framework.  Litigation costs are defined to include court costs, reasonable depositions costs, reasonable fees for not more than two testifying experts and reasonable attorney’s fees.
 
HB 274 is effective September 1, 2011

Serving clients throughout Texas, including Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Grayson, Kaufman, Rockwall and Tarrant counties and the communities of Addison, Allen, Arlington, Carrollton, Dallas, Fort Worth, Frisco, Garland, Grapevine, Highland Park, McKinney, Mesquite, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett and University Park, Murphy,Wylie, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, along with surrounding DFW areas.