Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht was required to appear before the Texas Ethics Commission on a new ethics charge: that a substantial discount given to him by a Texas firm resulted in a violation of campaign finance laws. Hecht had raked up $440,000 in legal fees in defending himself against charges that he violated judicial ethics when he advocated the selection of Harriet Miers for the United States Supreme Court.
Judicial officers are prohibited from endorsing candidates for political office and Hecht was found guilty for his work on behalf of Miers. He eventually got the sanction lifted but was stuck with the heavy bill. Attorney Chip Babcock and his firm, Jackson Walker, however, gave him a roughly $100,000 discount which is now getting him in renewed trouble.
For the full story, click here.
So Hecht, who spent $440,000 on legal costs on an appeal that proved him innocent of a charge, is now accused of not properly disclosing he negotiated a $100,000 discount of those costs he never should have had to incur in the first place……
Hmmmmmmm.
My biggest concern with this story is that lawyers can rack up $440 000 fees. Some lawyers make millions in fees from class action suits, where they don’t necessarily work much harder or longer than with a single plaintiff.
Maybe he had a coupon.
“So Hecht, who spent $440,000 on legal costs on an appeal that proved him innocent of a charge.” – Dundar
That’s not what he said, he said the sanctions were lifted. I’m no attorney, but I’m not certain it necissarily implies he was found innocent on appeal.
Past experience with Justice Hecht has shown:
1) He has usually not been particularly careful about playing by the rules.
2) He doesn’t do his homework when he is facing a challenge; he depends on his “good ol’ boy” charm to get things done.
3) Rumors abound in Dallas and Austin about the suspicious nature of his relationship with Harriet Mier. The question has always been: Who is the beard for whose homosexuality in this odd couple?
4) He spouts lies with the ease of a snake oil salesman.
No, he was NOT found innocent on appeal. He just tried to weasel his way out of it again, as usual. Hoping to get his fellow Republican cronies to look the other way — one more time.
“Hecht, right”? No, Hecht wrong! Yet another Republican politician hiding behind Christianity, yet proving by his actions that he certainly is not one.
Josh: According to the report the sanctions were REVERESED on appeal, not lifted as you chose to write. That would tell me he never should have been sanctioned in the first place.
Dundar,
I already have admitted I am not an attorney, however, reversed or lifted, whichever syntax you use, your statement is still not clear to me that he was “proven… innocent”.
Anyway, I’m not sure it matters. If he committed an ethics violation during his defense, it is seperate and apart from the original violation, true or not. Similar to a man on trial for a murder he didn’t commit, who murders the oposing council in an attempt to get off. He’d still be guilty of murder. Wouldn’t he?
Or is it a mitigating factor for you that he wouldn’t have murdered had he not been on trial?
This judge is as dirty as George W. Bush and Harriet Miers. When you don’t follow the law, you can’t be surprised that there are negative consequences. These ethics laws always seem to be troublesome to Republicans. Their arrogance is what gets them in trouble.