Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12
 
NO. 2011-01272IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OFR.B. AND M.G.B. AND IN THE INTEREST OF R.B. and M.B., MINOR CHILDREN§§§§§§§§§§§§§§IN THE DISTRICT COURT OFHARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS309th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RESPONDENT’S AND THIRD-PARTIES REPLY TO PETITIONER’S RESPONSE 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 The Hand 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’s Response to Motion for Sanctions, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:INTRODUCTION After Marshall Davis Brown, Jr., received Respondent and Third Parties’ Motion for Sanctions, he cornered Robert C. Kuehm, co-counsel for Respondent, and told him, “You’d better pull down that motion, or I’m coming after
 you.
In his surreal “Response,” (in which Petitioner
 judicially admits 
that her counsel’s conduct squarely and willfully violates the T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY
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 sanctions against Mr. Hilder personally. Respondent and Third Parties would respectfully show the court that Mr. Brown’s conduct in this case is part of a decades-long pattern of conduct grounded 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, to address a lawyer’s sacred duties with respect to conduct in their very Preamble, noting, “A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should 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 challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”  T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY
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 or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation towards any person involved in that proceeding in any capacity.(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a lawyer’s decision whether to represent particular person in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding, nor to the process of jury selection, nor to communications protected as confidential information under these Rules. See Rule 1.05(a),(b).It also does not preclude advocacy in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding involving any of the factors set out in paragraph (a) if that advocacy:(i)is necessary in order to address any substantive or procedural issues raised by the proceeding; and
 
3
(ii)is conducted in conformity with applicable rulings and orders of a tribunal and applicable rules of practice and procedure.
1
 To his limited credit, Mr. Brown makes no attempt to defend his comment -and apparently admits -that he asked female opposing counsel if she would like him “to examine her breasts for lumps.” Nor does he (nor could he) explain why it was permissible for him to 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 female counsel 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 the following “defenses” -none of which excuse him from “manifesting, by words or conduct…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 Movants contest 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 bias or 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 misconduct transpiring outside of as well as in the presence of the tribunal’s presiding adjudicatory official
. Moreover, the broad definition given to the term “adjudicatory proceeding” under these Rules means that paragraph (a)’s prohibition
applies to many settings besides conventional litigation in federal or state courts
 T
EXAS
D
ISCIPLINARY
ULE OF
P
ROFESSIONAL
C
ONDUCT
5.08, cmt 1.(emphasis supplied).

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505