Lawyer Hamilton Lindley - Waco Texas
In his more than ten years of litigation experience, Hamilton Lindley has developed a reputation for tenacity in the courtroom. He has been recognized as a Best Lawyer in Dallas by D Magazine, a Texas Super Lawyer and The National Trial Lawyers recently recognized him as a "Top 40 Under 40" lawyer. He was also President of the Dallas Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, where he assembled a great network of lawyers and judges. The subject matters of his cases have included fraud, malpractice, contracts, misrepresentations, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, securities regulation, mergers and acquisitions and corporate governance. He has also counseled clients on how to avoid litigation through real estate transactions, non-disclosure agreements, securities transactions and instal good corporate governance.hamiltonlindley.org As a nationwide litigator, he is a member of all Texas federal and state courts, and the Southern District of Indiana and Northern District of Illinois. Also, he is a member of the United States Supreme Court, and the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Aee. Br. at 20. In its brief, CFLD claims it failed to disclose only one case to Mr. Lindley. Id., at fn5. But that is false. RR 321 L9; CR 482. CFLD concealed six case names and citations. Id; App. Br. at 23. This avoided scrutiny of the improper legal conclusions. A. CFLD presented the six secret cases as binding legal authority Only disbarment was the available choice according to the six cases concealed by CFLD during the Panel hearing. Now CFLD claims the opposite. In its brief, those hidden cases were merely a persuasive reference point to why the Commission sought serious sanctions.
Aee.marketwatch.com Br. at 19. That is invention. They were presented to the Panel as if there was no other option. CFLD claimed instead that when it comes time to deliberate on the appropriate sanctions, there s nothing else the Commission can ask for. We have to ask for disbarment. There is some case law. RR 321, L4-6 (emphasis added). Then CFLD went on to discuss the six secret cases to the Panel. ]e have to ask for disbarment.stanford.edu CFLD s counsel could have plainly stated at the hearing that those cases were only the persuasive reference point for serious sanctions like the CFLD now contends. 9 not. CLFD s attempt to stuff the toothpaste back in the tube reveals that CFLD knows it was wrong to make such a claim at the hearing.
B. CLFD s revelation shows use of improper law CFLD is correct that Mr. Lindley could not locate the 107-year-old court of appeals case cited in its closing argument. Howard v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 135 S.W. 707, 710 (Tex. Civ. Contrary to the inference by CFLD, the Howard court did not disbar anyone. Id. CFLD s argument is so insufficient that it must use a case decided 78 years before the current ethical rules. And that case involving railroading still disbarred no lawyer. The reason CFLD did not reveal this case for six months is transparent. It is frail precedent. Now CFLD claims that Appellant failed to guess a case. Aee. Br.marketwatch.com at 20. That is true.
Mr. Lindley did not find it because CFLD distorted a quote from that opinion. CFLD did it twice once distorting it at closing argument before the Panel and then to this Board in its Appellee Brief. At closing before the Panel, CFLD s counsel claimed the Reyes court of appeals opinion quote was disbarment confirmed by reason of fabricated document. RR 321 L CFLD again represented to this Board that the quote is from the opinion. Aee. Br. at 20 fn5. That opinion contains no such quote. Reyes-Vidal v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, No CV (Tex. It is made up.
Id. The Panel cannot verify every word said by a prosecutor. So a judge must be able to take a quotation as a quotation. State Bar v. Farber, 408 S.E.2d 274, 281 (W. 10 behavior even if CFLD s proffered quote is a paraphrase. Id., at The State knew there were issues with the citations because these cases remained concealed after several requests. CR 482. CFLD obtained Mr. Lindley s disbarment by convincing the Panel about a non-existent quote from this case. In Reyes, the court emphasized the lawyer s wrongful retention of money belonging to the client as a reason for the disbarment. That did not happen here.
