Never Hesitate to Ask a Friend for Help

Metze's March 2025 "Ethics" column for Voice for the Defense takes up a disciplinary matter he left unnamed while it was pending on appeal. The question is whether Rule 4.02(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which bars a lawyer "in representing a client" from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented, reaches a lawyer appearing pro se. In a Commission for Lawyer Discipline action, the attorney served e-filed motions directly on Commission members and, after the Commission's counsel objected, kept serving them and wrote to the chair. The trial court granted the Commission summary judgment under Rules 4.02(a) and 8.04(a)(1) and, after a trial on sanctions, suspended the attorney for five years. The attorney had relied on Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 99(1)(b) and ethics opinion 653. On an issue of first impression in Texas, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio treated both as advisory and affirmed: a pro se lawyer functionally occupies the roles of attorney and client, and the rule protects the represented party from that lawyer's legal knowledge and skill. Metze's gloss is practical—counsel would likely have kept the Commission off the e-service list and stopped the letter—and personal: he once tried to represent himself, until a friend stepped in.

Rule 4.02(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct begins "In representing a client." Does the no-contact rule bind a lawyer who is a party and represents no one else? Metze's March 2025 ethics column reports a case, unnamed because it was pending appeal, that answered yes. Defending a Commission for Lawyer Discipline action pro se, the attorney e-filed two motions and added individual Commission members to the e-service list. The Commission's counsel called that improper communication with her client and asked the attorney to stop. The attorney kept serving members directly and wrote to the chair. The Commission added charges under Rules 4.02(a) and 8.04(a)(1), won summary judgment, and after a trial on sanctions obtained a five-year suspension. The attorney had relied on Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 99(1)(b) and Texas ethics opinion 653. On an issue of first impression in Texas, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio called both advisory, not binding, and affirmed. A pro se lawyer functionally occupies the roles of both attorney and client, and the rule protects the represented party from the lawyer's legal knowledge and skill. Metze's point: counsel would most likely have kept Commission members off the e-service list, stopped the letter to the chair, and tempered the urge to react in anger or frustration.

A Texas lawyer defending a discipline case without counsel was suspended for five years after sending filings directly to members of the body bringing the case. Professor Patrick S. Metze, then a criminal defense clinic director at Texas Tech University School of Law, described the case in a March 2025 ethics column for Voice for the Defense, the magazine of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. He did not name the case, which was still on appeal. The lawyer added members of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to the electronic service list. The commission's counsel objected, but the lawyer kept serving members directly and wrote to the commission's chair. The commission then alleged a violation of the Texas no-contact rule. The lawyer argued the rule does not cover lawyers who represent themselves. The trial court disagreed. On an issue of first impression in Texas, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio affirmed. A petition had been pending since August 2024. Metze, who had practiced law in Texas for 50 years, wrote that he recognized something of himself in the lawyer. Years earlier, he had tried to handle his own legal issues until a local attorney, worried about him, offered to help. The friend saw it through and never charged him. Metze urged readers to ask for help.

Here's a rule most people never hear about. In Texas, a lawyer who's representing a client isn't supposed to go around the other side's lawyer and contact the other side directly. So what happens when the lawyer is the one in trouble and is handling their own case? Professor Metze wrote about a real one in this short 2025 column. He left out the name on purpose because the case was still on appeal. A lawyer facing discipline kept sending court papers straight to members of the commission that brought the case, even after the commission's own lawyer asked them to stop. The lawyer also wrote directly to the commission's chair. The courts said the no-contact rule applies anyway, and the lawyer got a five-year suspension. Then Metze gets personal. Years ago, he tried to handle his own legal problems and thought he was doing fine. He wasn't. A local attorney walked into his office, said he was worried, and offered to help. Metze took him up on it and found peace in not having to make every call alone. His advice to readers is simple. Money trouble, pride, or being too close to the problem shouldn't stop you. Ask someone for help.

Ever been sure you had something handled, and you didn't? This 2025 column by Professor Metze starts with a lawyer who was in trouble with the Commission for Lawyer Discipline and decided to fight it alone. That lawyer kept sending court papers straight to the commission's members, even after the commission's lawyer said to stop. In Texas, lawyers aren't supposed to go around the other side's lawyer like that. The lawyer argued the rule doesn't count when you're representing yourself. The courts said it does, and the lawyer got suspended for five years. Metze says he saw something of himself in that lawyer. Years ago he tried to handle his own legal problems and thought it was going great. A local attorney who was worried about him stepped in, took the case all the way through, and never charged him a dime. His point is for you too: ask for help.