Supreme Court
Lane v. Comm. for Lawyer Discipline
- Case number: 23-0956
- Legal category: Attorneys
- Subtype: Disciplinary Proceedings
- Set for oral argument: December 4, 2024
Case Summary
The main issue in this disciplinary appeal is whether the four-year limitations period in Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.06 applies to a judgment imposing reciprocal discipline under Part IX of the rules.
In early 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a final judgment suspending Lane for inappropriate emails she sent to a federal magistrate judge in 2017. After Lane sent a copy of that judgment to Texas’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a petition for reciprocal discipline with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. In November 2023, after a hearing, BODA issued its judgment of identical discipline with two members dissenting.
The BODA majority and dissent disagree whether Rule 17.06 applies to reciprocal-discipline proceedings and, if it does, whether Lane waived the defense by failing to raise it in her response to the Commission’s petition or at the hearing. Rule 17.06 states a general rule prohibiting discipline “for Professional Misconduct that occurred more than four years before the date on which a Grievance alleging Professional Misconduct is received by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel.” The rule contains express exceptions for compulsory discipline under Part VIII and for prosecutorial misconduct.
The arguments presented by Lane and the Commission in this appeal address whether reciprocal discipline is initiated by a Grievance, whether the limitations rule is compatible with the procedure for reciprocal discipline in Part IX, whether the lack of an express exception for reciprocal discipline in Rule 17.06 is meaningful, and whether the limitations rule is an affirmative defense that is waived if not timely raised.
The Supreme Court set the appeal for oral argument.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.