I feel slightly weird about this.
A crook any way you look
Six top officials and employees at the Texas attorney general’s office have taken a leave of absence to help defend suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton in his impeachment trial this summer.
Those employees are solicitor general Judd Stone, the agency’s top appellate lawyer; assistant solicitors general Joseph N. Mazzara and Kateland Jackson; Chris Hilton, chief of the general litigation division; senior attorney Allison Collins; and executive assistant Jordan Eskew.
The news was first reported by the conservative website The Daily Wire. Jarrod Griffin, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, confirmed the report to The Texas Tribune.
Prior to Tuesday, it was unclear who would serve as Paxton’s lawyers in the impeachment trial before the Texas Senate.
I can’t fully articulate why this feels weird to me. I just didn’t expect his employees to be the ones taking on the task of defending him in the Senate. I guess I assumed he’d hire a couple of high-priced private attorneys, who would most likely be financed by his fat cat supporters. That’s icky in its own way, while this is almost heartwarming – they’re loyal enough to go without pay for some number of weeks to save his bacon! – and yet it still just has strange vibes to me. We don’t have the Senate rules yet about the trial, but this would seem to be within whatever those rules turn out to be. Is it weird that I think this is weird? I assume these people were all hand-picked by Paxton and would likely move on if they fail. Maybe I’m just overthinking it. What do you think? Oh, and how do you think they feel about going up against these guys?
While you ponder that, here’s a Chron story about the guy who had been temporarily filling in for Paxton as AG.
The Attorney General’s Office has announced that First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster will be the temporary replacement for Ken Paxton, who was impeached by the Texas House last week.
As first assistant attorney general, Webster represented Texas taxpayers in Paxton’s lawsuit that sought to overturn the 2020 election results for Donald Trump.
Webster started working for the office at a tumultuous time in October 2020, shortly after eight top aides reported Paxton to law enforcement, accusing him of taking bribes and abusing the authority of his office. Paxton fired the whistleblowers and hired new department heads, including Webster.
[…]
In December 2020, Webster signed his name to an unsuccessful suit filed by Paxton before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential wins in four battleground states.
The State Bar of Texas later sued Paxton and Webster for professional misconduct for his part in the suit, arguing that it made dishonest and misleading statements about the existence of voter fraud, including many that had already been debunked in other courts in the country. The case against Paxton is ongoing, and a judge dismissed the case against Webster, though the bar is appealing.
Top Republicans have come to their defense, with Abbott saying the case “raise(s) separation-of-powers questions under our Constitution” and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick calling it “politically motivated.”
The whistleblowers in their suit are seeking $15,000 in civil damages against Webster, as well as Paxton, for adverse personnel action taken in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. According to the suit, Webster had a role in firing all four and is accused of using intimidation tactics and pressuring some of them to resign.
I drafted this before the news about John Scott’s appointment as temporary AG, so this is less important now. Maybe the upside of Scott as temporary AG is that the agency, which does have basic operational things to do, is now being led by someone who’s not a close personal friend of Ken Paxton and might have something on their mind other than getting him off on the impeachment charges. Just a thought.
Anyway. We’ve discussed the State Bar’s actions against Webster before. I believe this is the first report I’ve seen that the judge’s ruling dismissing the case has been appealed; I’m delighted to see that. Beyond that, Brent Webster is to me basically like Angela Paxton, in that his moral qualities are severely limited by his voluntary association with Ken Paxton. We kind of already know everything we need to know about him. And now we can worry a little bit less about it.
Ok. Given that it’s Paxton, I’m going to assume the worst and work backwards. Paxton doesn’t need his crooked, fat-cat supporters to spend big money hiring lawyers on his behalf. The House has already hired the best lawyers out there. Instead, Paxton just needs some of that fat-cat money to secretly go to 10 Republican State Senators (his wife is already in the bag). Why waste money hiring defense lawyers when you can spend it buying the jury? Yes, I know that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. Still, we are talking about Paxton here…
A friend suggested the employees either figured out the fix was in or decided to prevent themselves from being called as witnesses. No matter what happens to Paxton, every one of the six will be rewarded by the usual party hacks and supporters.
I agree it’s weird. It makes these staff members in the AG’s office appear to be members of the Cult of Ken instead of professionals. They’re all potential witnesses, and should be compelled to testify in depositions to learn if they have material knowledge of the facts raised in the articles of impeachment. No reason the impeachment managers should play softball.
I think you guys are probably right. Putting themselves on Paxton’s legal defense team may just be an attempt to avoid being forced to testify under oath and reveal their own culpability. If anyone knows all the dirt in that Office, it is them.
Paxton knows everybody pleading the 5th Amendment in his Office wouldn’t look good.
You can’t avoid being a witness just by representing someone as their lawyer. If you have knowledge of material facts that arose outside of the attorney-client context, and you are essentially the main source for that evidence, then you would be disqualified from serving as that person’s lawyer in the proceeding under Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.08. (Note that Rule 3.08 has some exceptions that might apply, but the point still stands.)
Kenneth, I agree. They should have to testify unless they really know nothing. (Why am I remembering Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes?)
If their plan is to immunize themselves from testifying, that’s strategery, not strategy. If they’re getting paid big bucks by a Paxton supporter, their needs to be some discovery about that.
Abbott seems to have forgotten some basic facts about the State Bar of Texas. It is a public corporation, under the supervision of the judicial branch, and has been in charge of attorney discipline since memory runneth not. Its funding is independent of the State budget, coming instead from attorneys’ annual dues, and its officers and directors are elected by the members of the Texas bar. While the office of the AG is technically part of the executive branch under the Texas Constitution, the conduct of the AG and his assistants as lawyers is governed by the State Bar Rules.
Further to Kenneth’s point, Rule 3.08 provides that lawyers shouldn’t even accept employment as an advocate if they know or believe that they may be a witness on an essential fact.
“Ethics, schmethics,” says the Paxton legal team.
Who is paying for all of these high profile, high priced lawyers hired by Paxton and the state?