From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierce v. Blalack

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 16, 2017
No. 06-17-00013-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2017)

Opinion

No. 06-17-00013-CV

08-16-2017

FELICIA PIERCE, Appellant v. DEBBIE BLALACK, ET AL., Appellees


On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-1679-CCL2 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. ORDER

Pursuant to Rule XIX of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, Tami Hines filed a motion seeking admission to appear pro hac vice before this Court in this appeal. See TEX. RULES GOVERN. BAR ADM'N R. XIX (West 2017). In accordance with Rule XIX, Stephen R. Pitcock filed a motion in support of Hines' motion in which he stated, "I am a practicing attorney and a member in good standing with the State Bar of Texas." See id. Pitcock also filed a notice of appearance and designation of lead counsel on behalf of Sinclair Oil and Gas Company and Sinclair Oil Corporation. Hines' pro hac vice motion and Pitcock's motion in support were granted by this Court on July 26, 2017.

On August 8, 2017, Felicia Pierce field a motion for reconsideration asking, in effect, that the Court reconsider its rulings on Hines' and Pitcock's motions. Pierce claimed that the admission could not stand because Pitcock's motion in support failed to comply with the dictates of Rule XIX. More specifically, Pierce claimed that, at the time he filed his motion in support of Hines, Pitcock was prevented from practicing law in the State of Texas because he had claimed the Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Non-Practicing Exemption.

The law firm of Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., of which Pitcock and Hines are members, filed a response to Pierce's motion with the following attachments: (1) Affidavit of Stephen R. Pitcock; (2) John T. Richer's Motion in Support of Tami J. Hines' Motion Pro Hac Vice; (3) Motion to Withdraw Stephen R. Pitcock as Counsel for Sinclair Oil and Gas Company and Sinclair Oil Corporation; and (4) Notice of Appearance and Designation of Lead Counsel on Behalf of Sinclair Oil and Gas Company and Sinclair Oil Corporation.

The response to Pierce's motion for reconsideration with attached affidavit explains that Pitcock has been licensed with the Texas State Bar for over twenty years and was active for most of that time period. Pitcock explained that, in 2017, he claimed an exemption from MCLE requirements. Pitcock further stated that, because he had paid his Texas Bar dues for 2017, he mistakenly believed that he continued to maintain his active status with the Texas State Bar through 2017 and that he did not intend to deceive this Court. Pitcock's explanation is reasonable and is well taken.

In light of Pitcock's affidavit and the response filed by his law firm, we (1) grant Pitcock's motion to withdraw as counsel for Sinclair Oil and Gas Company and Sinclair Oil Corporation; (2) find that Richer's motion in support of Hines' motion seeking pro hac vice admission complies with Rule XIX of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas and grant that motion; (3) grant Hines' motion for pro hac vice admission as supported by Richer's motion in support; and (4) deny Pierce's motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT Date: August 16, 2017


Summaries of

Pierce v. Blalack

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 16, 2017
No. 06-17-00013-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2017)
Case details for

Pierce v. Blalack

Case Details

Full title:FELICIA PIERCE, Appellant v. DEBBIE BLALACK, ET AL., Appellees

Court:Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date published: Aug 16, 2017

Citations

No. 06-17-00013-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2017)