Justice Court Cap Set to Double

Beginning September 1, the people of Texas will find it easier to obtain restitution when they have suffered damages: Justice Courts will hear cases on matters up to $20,000.

Justice Court jurisdiction has been limited for years to controveries concerning $10,000 or less, but inflation has rendered this limit increasingly out of date.

This change comes almost a decade into the effort to make Justice Court more accessible to the average Texan. In 2011, the legislature adopted Texas Government Code Sec. 27.060, which states the purpose of small claims court is to “ensure the fair, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of small claims cases.” Justice Court judges are further required to keep hearings “informal, with the sole objective being to dispense speedy justice between the parties.”

At the Harris County Law Library, we see first-hand how average Texans can be frustrated by the $10,000 limit in pursuit of restitution, particularly in cases involving damage to their motor vehicles, or sometimes by unscrupulous contractors to their homes. Filing a small claims case requires filing out a one page, fill-in-the-blank form by hand. The form is conveniently available for free on the Harris County Justice of the Peace website. But even a Houstonian savvy enough to find their way to our reference desk is likely to be frustrated by the legalese-laden templates and handbooks necessary to press a claim worth any more than $10,000. Especially if they are suing an established corporation, even a well-educated pro se litigant with a good claim is likely to be unfamiliar with legal terminology and procedure, and will face an uphill battle.

As our library strives to provide all the residents of Harris County with access to justice, we are pleased our patrons will benefit from the broadened access to Texas’s so-called “people’s court.”

Houston Civil Rights Org Files Lawsuit to Enforce SCOTUS DACA Ruling

Familias Inmigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha (FIEL) Houston has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to compel the Trump administration to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., which was widely interperted to mean the executive branch must begin processing the tens of thousands of backlogged Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications.

Despite the fact that the Court held DACA must immediately be reinstated, as the United States District Court for the District of Maryland also held on July 17, to its “pre-September 5, 2017 status,” the Executive Branch has resisted. Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, released a memo directing his agency to shorten DACA renewals, end the policy of allowing applicants with pending status to leave and then reenter the United States, and “to take all appropriate actions to reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the actions outlined in the memo as “patently ilegal.” In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, University of Houston Law Center Professor Emeritus Michael Olivas explained, “The Supreme Court said you can’t shut it down without going through the proper channels, which they [DHS] have not yet done.”

“Nobody is above the law,” said Cesar Espinosa, Director of FIEL Houston. “If the Supreme Court gave a decision, [the Trump administration] needs to take action immediately.” His organization filed suit because, he explained, “These young people cannot wait anymore.”

The Houston Chronicle estimates the number of so-called “Dreamers” in Texas would double if the Trump administration accepted both new and outstanding DACA applications.

Recognition in the Time of COVID: Judge Daryl Moore receives Law Library Advocate Award

View fullsize

Congratulations to Judge Daryl Moore, Texas 333rd District Court, who is this year’s recipient of the American Association of Law Libraries Government Law Libraries section Law Library Advocate Award! Judge Moore was recognized for his work in support of expanding law library services to all in Harris County, Texas. His tireless work as co-chair of the HBA County Law Library Committee helped the Law Library expand services for self-represented litigants, create new educational opportunities for the local legal community, and increase funding for library programs offered to everyone in Harris County.

---

View fullsize

Presenting an Award During a Pandemic

In a regular year, Judge Moore would have received his well-deserved award at the annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries to a room filled with law librarians from across the country. 2020 is not a regular year. As such, our director presented the award to Judge Moore on Friday at the Law Library to an audience of a socially-distanced photographer.

"Court" News

Photo credit: Pixabay

The Houston Rockets have joined the list of sports franchises to file lawsuits against their insurance carriers for losses related to COVID-19. In June, a group of 15 minor league baseball teams filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleging catastrophic financial loss due to governmental action and inaction and seeking coverage of its claims for business interruption. Just last week, the Houston Rockets organization followed suit. After a denial of a claim under its $400M insurance policy, Clutch City Sports & Entertainment , L.P. (d/b/a Toyota Center) and Rocket Ball, Ltd. (Houston Rockets) sued their insurance carrier Affiliated FM Insurance Company in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the existence and presence of COVID-19 has triggered the “all-risks” coverage under its insurance policy, has caused physical loss and damage to the property, has led to impairment and loss of functionality, and has caused plaintiffs to experience covered business interruption. In addition to the all risks coverage, plaintiffs also assert that coverage was triggered under multiple “Additional Coverages” and “Coverage Extensions” due to property damage and business interruption. Plaintiffs cited the nature of COVID-19 as a communicable disease, the civil authority orders issued to stem the spread of the disease, and the fact that the NBA’s plan to resume play for the 2019-2020 season did not include Toyota Center as support for its claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Texas Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as well as special and consequential damages. As stated in the complaint, “[s]imply put, Toyota Center has lost its functionality and has been impaired by the existence of COVID-19.”

Whether lawsuits such as this will be the coming trend remains to be seen. A lot might depend on the success of the Rockets’ lawsuit and the federal action filed by the minor league teams. Until then, we’ll just have to wait for the buzzer and see how the court rules.

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Bar Admission in Time of Covid

If you are now, or have ever been, a licensed attorney, then you probably have a hazy constellation of bar exam memories seared into your brain. While each state handles its aspiring practitioners in different ways, for many lawyers nationwide the experience included being herded into a massive space packed with folding tables, borderline elbow-to-elbow with hundreds of other emotionally-exhausted recent graduates fueled by a summer’s worth of coffee and pizza, under the watchful eyes of a battalion of retiree proctors. Is it possible to replicate this special rite of passage in the time of Covid? The Texas Supreme Court, which ultimately controls the method of bar admission state-wide, decided on Friday it is not currently feasible to do so.

Some states, such as Washington and Utah, have decided to temporarily waive bar exam requirements for prospective attorneys who meet certain qualifications, like holding a JD from an ABA accredited school, or who fulfill a certain number of hours of supervised legal work. Here in Texas, law school deans, students, and prominent attorneys around the state, called for the state Supreme Court to similarly implement a “diploma privilege” that would have allowed JDs to earn licensure through supervised practice, or even just by virtue of having a JD.

Indeed, Texas has offered diploma privilege for bar admission in the past, though it has been almost 100 years. The requirement for a written examination was first implemented in Texas in 1903. Two years later, in 1905, UT Law graduates were able to join the bar without sitting for the exam (Texas Laws 1905, page 150, Laws 1919, page 63). In 1919, these rules were expanded to include graduates from other law schools, unnamed in the Act but enumerated in accompanying Rules. According to a 1978 article in the Houston Law Review, the reason for this expansion was lobbying from the then nascent (and now nonexistent) TCU law school to break the UT diploma privilege monopoly. (Stephen K. Huber & James E. Myers, Admission to the Practice of Law in Texas: an Analytical History, 15 Hou. L. Rev. 485, 512 (1978).) Rather than expand the diploma privilege to graduates of other Texas law schools, the Texas Supreme Court decided at that time to instead expand the privilege to graduates of law programs of high national renown, in order to encourage attorneys of quality to consider a move to Texas. The eight schools then covered besides UT were University of Virginia, Washington and Lee, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, and George Washington University. (Id.) The Texas diploma privilege lasted in this form until its total repeal in 1935.

Instead of reviving some version of the long-gone diploma privilege, even temporarily, this past Friday the Texas Supreme Court opted for a hybrid model. First, the Court outright cancelled the July 2020 exam administration previously scheduled for the end of this month. Next, the Court has ordered an in-person exam be administered September 9 – 11th, “subject to guidance from public health authorities.” Scoring will be rushed to only be delayed by three weeks from the typical release of July scores. Third, the Court has ordered a bar examination be offered on-line the first week of October. Finally, the Court has asked law school deans and local bar organization leaders to help identify practitioners willing to formally supervise practice by JDs who will sit for the bar in either September, October, or February 2021, thereby providing a path to begin practice despite disruption to the exam administration.

As Covid spread puts Texas on the map as a global hotspot, it seems likely the Texas Supreme Court may revisit the issue of diploma privilege again in the coming months. But with the bar now postponed at least six weeks, students can breathe a brief sigh of relief before getting back to their flashcards.