Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
NO. 2011-01272IN THE MATTER OF THEMARRIAGE OFR.B. ANDM.G.B. AND IN THE INTEREST OF R.B. andM.B., MINOR CHILDREN§§§§§§§§§§§§§§IN THE DISTRICT COURT OFHARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS309th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RESPONDENT’S AND THIRD-PARTIES REPLY TO PETITIONER’SRESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
COME NOW, Respondent Michael G. Brown, Third-Parties Brown Medical Center,Inc., Superior Vehicle Leasing Company, Inc., Texas Hand Therapy Center, Inc., d/b/a TheHand Center, MG Brown International, L.L.C., MG Brown Investment Group, L.L.C.,Prorentals, Inc., Lionheart Company, Inc., and Castlemane, Inc. (collectively, “the Corporate Third Parties”), and Third Party BHCF, LLC, and file this their Reply to Petitioner’sResponse to Motion for Sanctions, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:INTRODUCTION After Marshall Davis Brown, Jr., received Respondent and Third Parties’ Motion forSanctions, he cornered Robert C. Kuehm, co-counsel for Respondent, and told him, “You’dbetter pull down that motion, or I’m coming after
 you.
” In his surreal “Response,” (in whichPetitioner
 judicially admits 
that her counsel’s conduct squarely and willfully violates the T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY 
R 
ULES OF
P
ROFESSIONAL
C
ONDUCT
 ) Mr. Brown did exactly that -“coming after” Mr. Kuehm in an attempt to deflect from his own deplorable conduct. Mr. Brown
 
2
also attacks Phillip Hilder, co-counsel for the Corporate Defendants, seeking sanctionsagainst Mr. Hilder personally. Respondent and Third Parties would respectfully show thecourt that Mr. Brown’s conduct in this case is part of a decades-long pattern of conductgrounded in misogyny and bigotry, and implore this Court to
stop him.
I. This court should look at the Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern us all, toaddress a lawyer’s sacred duties with respect to conduct in their very Preamble, noting, “Alawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional serviceto clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’sprocedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyershould demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges,other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challengethe rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.” T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY 
R 
ULES OF
P
ROFESSIONAL
C
ONDUCT
5.08 provides :(a) A lawyer shall not willfully, in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding, except as provided in paragraph (b), manifest, by words orconduct, bias or prejudice based on race, color, national origin, religion,disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation towards any person involved in thatproceeding in any capacity.(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a lawyer’s decision whether torepresent particular person in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding, nor to the process of jury selection, nor tocommunications protected as confidential information under theseRules. See Rule 1.05(a),(b).It also does not preclude advocacy inconnection with an adjudicatory proceeding involving any of thefactors set out in paragraph (a) if that advocacy:(i)is necessary in order to address any substantive or proceduralissues raised by the proceeding; and
 
3
(ii)is conducted in conformity with applicable rulings and ordersof a tribunal and applicable rules of practice and procedure.
1
 To his limited credit, Mr. Brown makes no attempt to defend his comment -andapparently admits -that he asked female opposing counsel if she would like him “to examineher breasts for lumps.” Nor does he (nor could he) explain why it was permissible for himto say to opposing female counsel, while standing in the courtroom after he had been hand-served with a copy of a pleading, that he had “never been so ashamed of a white woman.”He misstates the fact surrounding his suggestion that he share a hotel room with one femalecounsel on an upcoming trip, as that comment was made directly to her in the presence of multiple other attorneys at a deposition. As to the rest of his slurs, Mr. Brown offers thefollowing “defenses” -none of which excuse him from “manifesting, by words orconduct…discrimination based on sex:”
The “I-Didn’t-Have-the-Guts-to-Say-it-to-Her-Face-So-I-Disparaged-Her-to- Her-Co-Counsel” Defense 
Mr. Brown could not, as an officer of the court, deny that he referred to female opposing counsel by the slurs contained in Respondent’s/Third Parties’ Motion. While Movantscontest Mr. Brown’s version of the facts, and will present contrary evidence at the time of hearing, Mr. Brown admits, at a minimum, to making the comments to female opposing 
1
 The comments to the Rule are very clear:Subject to certain exemptions, paragraph (a) of this Rule prohibits willful expressions of biasor prejudice in connection with adjudicatory proceedings that are
directed towards
any person involved with those proceedings in any capacity. Because the prohibited conduct only must occur “in connection with” an adjudicatory proceeding,
it applies to misconducttranspiring outside of as well as in the presence of the tribunal’s presidingadjudicatory official
. Moreover, the broad definition given to the term “adjudicatory proceeding” under these Rules means that paragraph (a)’s prohibition
applies to manysettings besides conventional litigation in federal or state courts
 T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY 
R 
ULE OF
P
ROFESSIONAL
C
ONDUCT
5.08, cmt 1.(emphasis supplied).
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more