~2/29/03 11:35 ’~’830 37~0633 GUAD DIST COURT 004

NO: 03-03209-I

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER

DISCIPLINE

VS.

- KIP HUGHES ALLISON

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

162N° JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AGREED JUDGMENT OF FULLY PROBATED SUSPENSION

The following Agreed Judgment is ~ntered at fl~e t’equ~st ofP~tition~r, fl~e Commi.gsion for

Lawyer Discipline, by and through its attorney of record, A.rdita Vick, and at fl}c request of

Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, by ,and through his attorney of record, Robert I.Iinton, who agree

that all matters ofihct and things in controversy, other thma the method of payment of attorney’s tees

and costs, between, them. have been .fizlly. mad finally compromi.~ed and settled. Petit~o.ner, the

Commissioa for Lawycr Discipline, and " "’ R.cspondent, Kq.~ Hughes Al.~ison, have agrcexl to subnlit to

the Court for dctenrtination the method of payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the Court’s

decision on that issue is set out in this Agreed Judgrn.ent of Fully Probated Suspension.

The Court finds that the acts, omission and conduct of Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison,

constitute violation of’Kxfle 1.09(a’) of the Texas Disciplinary "Rules of.Professi.ona,t Conduct.

As to ettch suoh violation, the Cou~t finds that .Rcspo.o.dent, Kip Hughes Allison, has

committed professional misconduct as defined in Rule 1:06 .of the Tcx~s Rules of Disciplinary

~Eoccdur¢.

As to such acts of misconduct, the Court finds that the appropriate discipline is suspension

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension/AllisonPage 1

¯ 4Z/28/0~ ii:~ ’~8~0 ~78 06~3 GUAD DIST COL~T ~ 005

from the practice of law is the State of Texas for the period of tl~y-six (36) months, to be fully

probated upon the terms and conditions to be hereaR~r sot forth.

Kip

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED, ADJtI~OGt~I) AND DECREED that Respondent,

Hughes Allison, State Bar Number 00789117, be aod is herehyplaced on a fl~|rty-six (36) month

ending, m.td tr.lcludmg, Decez 1 cr 31, 2007hilly probated suspension begdmaing Janum’y 1, 2004 artd " . ¯ " - "" ¯ ....~ b-

during which time P, cspondeat shall be entitled to practice law in the State of Texas subject to the

following term s and conditions:

l. Respondent, Kip Hughes Alhson, shall, pay to Petitioner, the sum of eightthousand dollars ($8,000.00) in attorneys’ fees and costs for the prosecution ofthis action on the terms set forth below.

A payment of one flwmsmad ’five hmxlred dollars ($1,500.00) of the attorneys’tees and costs shall be paid by Respondent on or belbre January 1, 2004 in thefoma era cashier’s cheek or money order made payable to the State Bar o£Texas,and sent to the Offi ce of the Chief Disciplinm-y Counsel -- Litigafio,t~, Statc Bin’ of

Texas, 37] 0 Rawlins, Suite800, D~.l.tas, ’.l.’cxas -75219.

The remaining six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500,00) of the attorney.~’fees and costs plus interest at file rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be paidin twenty-four inatallments in the amount of two htmdred eighty-eight dollars andeight c~nts ($288.08) each, due and payable on or before the I~t day of each

month begirttx~tg Fcbcua,y ], 2004 and continuing tl’a-ough ffanuary 1, 2006 in dieform of a cashier’s check or money order, made payable to the State Btar ofTexas, and sent to the Offteo of the Chief Disciplinary" Cotmsel - Litigation, StateBar of".l"exa.% 37 | 0 Rawlins, S~.~te 800, Dallas, Texas 75219. The prhxeipM andinterest amount of each payment is set out in the amoritization schedule attached

to this judgment a,~ F, xhibit A.- There shaI1 be no penalty should Respondentchoose to pay the attornoys’ fees and cost belbre they are due. However, any

such pre-payment lllust bc of the entire lump stun of attorneys’ fees and costs(principal)still owed at the time of the pre-payment, as shown in theamoritization schedule attached to this judgment as Exhibit A.

Should Respondent not pay any amotmt of attorneys’ thos a~d costs on the datesuch payment is due, Respondent vdll have materialIy violated the tin-ms o£ this

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension/AlllsonPage 2 ’

~2/29/03 11:36 "~830 379 0633 GUAD DIST COURT ~006

judgment and ofhi~ probation and executi.on w~ll lie. Interest shall accrue on anyunpaid attorneys" fees ~ud costs beginni~lg tb.irty days after the pay~aent i.~ due at

the rate or five percent (fi.0%) per annum untilpaid. This interest of five percent(5.0%) per mmum shall be in additiot , to the interest of six peg cnt (6.0%) per

¯. aimttm due on the twenty-four monthly installments.

2. Respondent, Kip Httghes Allison, shall at all times dufh~g the pe~’iod ofp.robati.ot~bc in compliance with the ten’ns and conditions of this judgment.

Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, shall not bc found guilt> of, or plead no contest"to m~y felony involving mood turpitude or any misdemeanor involving theft,embezzlement, or fraudulent misappropriation of money or other p.rope.~xy.

4. Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, shall not v~.olate a..W o.l?th Texas .D~.sc.,pl.mary

Rules ofPro£e, ssional Conduct.

Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, from Sanuary 1, 2004 through and includingDecember 31, 2007 shall notify both the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counseland the Membership Department of the State Bar of Texas of any change inRespondent’~ address within thirty (30) days oft.he change of address.

6. Respondem, Kip Hughes Allison, shall submit himsel£ to the Pro£essionalism

Enhancement Program (PEP) Committee for the State Bar of’T’exas for aterm asprescribed by the PEP Conmaittee. Respondent sh’,dl comply with all terms andconditions as set forth by the PEP Committee. Any failure to cooperate orcomply with all of he PEP Committee’s terms and conditions shall be groundsfor probation revocation and/or shall i’orm the basis oi" a State Bar initiatedcomplain~ tbr the violation of the terms of a disclplinary judgment pursuant toRule 8.04(a)(7). Respondent shall execute waivers or releases of confidentialityand provide other docttments required by the PEP Co.tntnittee. Any eaad all costsor expenses associated with auy requiremeaat placed on Respondent by the PEP

Committee shalI be the sole responsibility of the Respondent.

7. Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, shall complete a Law Office ManagementCourse on or before December 31, 2005.

..Respondent; Nip I-htghes Allison, shall iimely comply with all requests for

intbrmation t~rwarded to hi.m by any grievance committee of the State Bar of

Texas.

9, Respondent, Kip Hughes Alllso=, shall cooperate fully with ChiefDisclplinary

Agreed Jtldgmer~t o~ Fldly .P. robatcd Suspension/AllisonP,,ge 3

-12/29/03 11:36 ~830 379 0633 GUAD DIST COURT ~007

Counsel’s OI~ic¢ o.fthe State Bar of Texas in their efforts to monitor compliancewith thi~ judgment.

10. Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, shall comply with the Minimum Continuing

Legal l~dt~cation (MCLE) requirem~nt.~ in accordm~ce with Article Ill oftheSta~eBar Rulcs.:

In the event flaat Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison, .~hould violate any of the foregoing terms

or conditions of probation, the Court shull revoke such probation impo.~ed on Reapondent and

upon Re.~po~dent an actual suspension from the practice o.t" law for a full thirty-six (36)

monflls in accordance with the following procedures:

Upon the receipt of infomaation which shows ju~ eauze and belief thatRe~pondeut, Kip Hughes, Allison, has violated any term or condition of his

probation, any grievance eommiFtce of the State Bar of Texas having receivedsuch infomlation or the office of’the Chief Disciplinary Counsel ofth~ State Barof Texas shall file with the Court a written Mot.ion to Revoke probation,describing the acts and conduct that gave .rise to the alleged violation of’a term orcondition of probation.

2. A copy of such motion shall be served on Respondent pursuant to T~R.C.P. 21a at

Respondent’s last known address shown o.o. the mer~abe,’ship rolls office State IBm,of Texas.

The Court shall conduct an evidentiary heari.ng within thirty i30) days of the date

the Respondent is served w~th a copy ot" such motion, at which hearing the

Commission for Lawyer Discipline shall bern- I]~e burdert of pro vbag the vlolat~ortby a preponderance of the evidence.

4. The Cottrt ~hall decide, without the aid of a jury, whether the Respondent ha.~violated any tem~ or condition o£probation.

Should.the Court determine that Respon.dent h~ committed any violation, the .Court ~hall enter an Order Revo "lOng R.e~’pondent s probat.ion and imposingupon .Respondent an ~ctual suspension fi:om the practice ~f law for the period of thirty-

six (36) months, with s,xid thirty-six (36) months to begin on or after the date ofrevocation.

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension/AllisonPage 4

~1’2/29/03 11:36 ~830 3’79 0633 GUAI) DT_ST COURT _~

13:27 HIN" & P.S~C -> 214 559 4335 NO.

¯ 0. FullAmortizationM6nthly Principal & Interest; $288.08Total NUmber of Payments: 24

Total of 24 Paymi~nts: $6,914.02Odglnal Loan Amount: $6,500,00Tot~[ Interest Paid: $414.02

Nomber

1

2

3

4

5 $5,469.97

6 $5,209.24

$4,683,85

9 $4,419.19

11 $3,88538

12 $3,617,23

13 $3,347.23

~4 ’$3,075.88

16

17 $2,253,67

18 $1,976.85

~9 $1,698.6~

20 . $1,418,9

21 $1,13~.07. $288,08

22 $855.~~" $288.08

23 $571,88 $288.08

24 .. $286,65 $288.08.

Loan Amorti cationPrincipal - ~ -~yment Intere~ PrincipalBalance Amount Paid Applied.

$5,987.55 ¯ $288.08 ’$29.94 $258.15

NewBalance

$6,244,42

$5,987.55

$5.729.41

$5,469.97$288.08 $28,6,5 $2,59.44

$288.0B $27.35 $280.73

$288.08 $26,05 $262.04

: $’288,08 $24174

. $288.08 $23.42

$288.08 $22.i0

$288,08 $20,77

$288.08 $19.43

$28a.oa $I

$288.o8 $15.7

$288.08 ’ $45.38

’$2,so3. 8 $288,o8

$2,529.11 $288.08 $12.65

15288.08 $11,27

$21~8,08 !$8.49

$263.S5

$267.32

$268,65

$270,00

$271.35.

’$272.70

$27~:Q7

$275.44

$278.20

$5’209.24

$4,947.20

$4;153.20

$3,6~7,23

.$3,347.23

$3,075.88

$2,803.1B

-, $2,529.,11

$2,253.67

$1,976.85

$ ,69s.68

, $1,4~ 9.0~

$288.08 $7.10

$~,69

$4.28

$2,86

I $ t .43

$28.0,99

$282,39

$283.81

$285.22

$286.65.

$1,138.07

$855.68

$571~8

$286,65

COMMISSION FORLAWYER DISCIPLINE.

Vo

KIP HUGHES ALLISON

NO.

SECOND AMENDED DISCIPLINARY PETITION

Petitioner, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, a committee of the State Bar of Texas (the

Comlmsslon ) complains of Respondent, Kip Hughes Allison ("Respondent), showing the Court:

Discovery Control Plan

Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.3, TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (TRCP), the

Commission intends discovery in this case to be conducted under the Level II Discovery Control

Plan. Rule 3.07 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure requires the court to set a trial date for

this matter to commence no later than 180 days after the date this Disciplinary Petition is filed with

the District Court.

IL

Petitioner brings this disciplinary action pursuant to the State Bar Act, Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann.

§ 81.001, ~ (Vernon 1988), the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas

Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The complaint which forms the basis of the Disciplinary Petition

was filed on or after May 1, 1992.

HI.

Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the State Bar

~ge~ hes Allison- Second Amended Disci iina Petition

of Texas. Respondent is a resident of and has his principal place of practice in Dallas County, Texas.

Respondent has appeared before the Court for all purposes.

IV.

From May 1998 through May 1999, Respondent represented Judge Craig Fowler ("Judge

Fowler") in Cause No. 4420, Craig Fowler, Individually, and on Behalf of The Estate of Bonsilene

A. Fowler, Deceased v. Kara Chilleri and Richard Chilleri, in the 355t~ District Court of Hood

County, Texas (the "Fowler/Chilleri Matter"). The Fowler/Chilleri Matter was hotly contested and

involved a significant amount of legal work, including numerous filings, hearings, discovery

disputes, depositions, correspondence, meetings, and settlement negotiations.

Respondent did not have a written contract with Judge Fowler regarding Respondent’s fee for

legal services in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter. Further, Respondent did not communicate with Judge

Fowler regarding the basis or rate of the fee within a reasonable time after agreeing to represent

Judge Fowler in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter. Rather, Respondent told Judge Fowler the fee would be

"reasonable." Respondent ultimately submitted a bill in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter in the amount of

$1,900, purportedly for 15.75 hours of legal work. Respondent did not bill Judge Fowler for a

significant amount of the legal work Respondent performed in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter.

Respondent represented to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in a letter dated March

19, 2001 that he charged Judge Fowler a reasonable "Granbury" rate of $100.00 per hour for his

the Fowler/Chilleri matter and that he routinely does not charge his clients forlegal services in

support staff, faxes, filing fees, or travel costs. However, in an affidavit filed on September 3, 1998

in the 355t~ District Court of Hood County, Texas in connection with a Motion to Compel Discovery

_KiD Hu~hes AI!~son - Second Amended Disciplinary Petltlo.Page 2

in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter, Respondent testified that he charged Judge Fowler $175 per hour for

Respondent’s legal services. In that affidavit, Respondent further testified that he spent

"approximately 6 hours of time compelling defendant to produce documents." Respondent’s June

30, 1999 invoice for legal services in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter contains no entry for the 6 hours of

time Respondent allegedly spent compelling such discovery.

VIo

On November 4, 1998, Respondent, on behalf of Judge Fowler, filed an amended petition in

the Fowler/Chilled Matter naming Andrea Moore ("Moore"), opposing counsel, as a defendant,

claiming $300.00 paid by the Chilleris to Moore for attorney’s fees were "stolen ftmds?’ On March

15, 1999, Respondent also filed an intervention on behalf of Judge Fowler in the Chilleri’s pending

divorce in Travis County, Texas. Respondent did not have a reasonable basis to assert these claims.

On March 23, 1999, while the Fowler/Chilleri Matter was still pending, Judge Fowler, on his

own motion, appointed Respondent as attorney ad litem in a custody modification dispute pending in

the 255th District Court ("the Baxley/Camargo Matter"). Neither Judge Fowler nor Respondent

informed counsel for at least one party of the legal work Respondent was performing for Judge

Fowler in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter. Respondent subsequently requested to be appointed as

guardian ad litem for the children in the Baxley/Camargo Matter. Judge Fowler granted

Respondent’s motion. Respondent then requested to be removed as attorney ad litem, citing a

potential conflict between the children’s interests and the children’s best interest. Although the

Texas Family Code mandates that in such a situation Respondent was required to withdraw as

guardian ad litem and remain as attorney ad litem, Judge Fowler granted Respondent’s request.

Kiv Hughes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary Petitio,,Page 3 ’

Neither Mellissa Baxley nor Daniel Baxley, Respondent’s clients, consented to Respondent

continuing as guardian ad litem in the litigation. As guardian ad litem, Respondent could potentially

advocate a position adverse to the interest of his former clients, the children.

In the ensuing 65 days, Respondent billed $64,557.75 in legal fees and $8,984.60 incosts in

the Baxley/Camargo Matter. Respondent charged the parties for miscellaneous fees such as postage,

copying, faxes, and a courier service even though he represented to the State Commission on Judicial

Conduct that it is not his regular practice to do so and he did not charge Judge Fowler for similar

expenses in the Fowler/Chilleri Matter.

Respondent’s legal fees included time billed by Georgarme Simpson ("Simpson"), a contract

attorney. Respondent did not obtain approval from the court to retain Simpson. Further, although

Simpson charged Respondent $125 per hour for her work on the Baxley/Camargo matter,

Respondent sought, and received payment, for Simpson’s time at the rate of $200 per hour.

Pursuant to court order, Constance Camargo ("Camargo") was required to pay 25% of

Respondent’s fees and David Baxley ("Baxley") was required to pay 75% of Respondent’s fees.

Respondent requested the payment of all legal fees and expenses billed by Respondent between

March 23, 1999 and May 28, 1999. Because Carnargo did not have funds available to pay her share

of Respondent’s fees, Respondent requested Baxley be required to pay the entire fee and that Baxley

then be allowed to recoup the amount owed by Camargo by withholding the child support Baxley

was required to pay to Camargo for the support of the children, Respondent’s former clients.

Judge Fowler granted Respondent’s request, required Baxley to pay 100% of Respondent’s

fees through May 28, 1999, and ordered that Baxley could withhold 50% of the monthly child

support he was required to pay for the benefit of the children until Baxley recouped Camargo’s share

Kip Hu~hes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary PetitionPage 4

of Respondent’s fees. By requesting the children’s child support be reduced so that Respondent

could immediately receive all fees billed, Respondent advocated a position adverse to the interest of

the children, Respondent’s former clients.

Camargo appealed Judge Fowler’s order allowing Baxley to offset the portion of

Respondent’s fees owed by Camargo fi’om the child support. Respondent continued to work on the

matter throughout the appellate process and continued to bill Baxley, but not Camargo, for this work.

Respondent ultimately received more than $100,000 in payments from Baxley. The amount of legal

fees charged by Respondent in the Baxley/Camargo Matter was unconscionable under the

circumstances.

From March 24, 1999 through May 28, 1999, Respondent billed $64,557.75 in legal fees and

$8,984.60 in costs in the Baxley/Camargo Matter. Due to previous payments by Baxley and

Camargo, Respondent claimed he was owed $39,771.60, with Camargo owing $14,485.44. Baxley

was ordered to pay this entire amount and was allowed to retain 50% of the children’s child support

to recoup the over-payment. Judge Fowler ordered that Respondent’s fees incurred after May 28,

1999 would be paid 50% by Camargo and 50% by Baxley.

On June 24, 1999, Baxley sent Respondent a check for $50,000. Although Respondent had

not earned the entire $50,000 on either June 2, 1999 or June 24,1999, Respondent deposited all funds

in his operating account. Respondent failed to deposit those portions of the funds belonging to

Baxley in Respondent’s trust account.

After June 2, 1999, Respondent continued to bill Baxley, but not Camargo, for Respondent’s

work in the Baxley/Camargo Matter. Although Baxley owed only 50% of Respondent’s fees,

Kiv Hu~hes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary Petitio..Page 5

Respondent applied all funds received from Baxley to the entire outstanding balance. Ultimately,

Respondent commingled over $18,000 of Baxley’s funds with Respondent’s funds and, at the

termination of the representation, failed to return all funds belonging to Baxley.

IX,

On April 26, 1999, Respondent, as attomey ad litem, filed a Motion to Modify Discovery

Procedures in the Baxley/Camargo Matter. To support this request, Respondent misrepresented to

the court that he was not made aware of his March 23, 1999 appointment until the week following

the appointment. However Respondent’s invoices indicates he started billing for services in the

Baxley/Camargo Matter on March 24, 1999, one day after his appointment.

Xo

During the course of the Baxley/Camargo Matter, Respondent represented to Camargo and to

Camargo’s counsel that Judge Fowler would listen to Respondent and rule as Respondent requested.

Based on Judge Fowler’s rulings in the litigation, Camargo and Camargo’s counsel believed these

statements to be true.

XIe

On May 20, 1999, Respondent filed a motion in the Baxley/Camargo Matter seeking the

payment ofRespondent’s fees. In that motion, Respondent stated "On May 21, 1999, this matter was

unsuccessfully mediated." This statement was not tree when Respondent filed his motion and, in

fact, the case was resolved at the mediation on May 20, 1999.

In a Motion for Sanctions filed on or about March 27, 2001, Respondent represented that his

attorney-client relationship with Judge Fowler had been disclosed to counsel for both parties in the

Kip Hu~hes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary Pelllio.,Page 6 ’

Baxley/Camargo matter at or near the time of Respondent’s appointment. According to Camargo’s

attorneys, no such disclosure was made by Judge Fowler, Respondent, or any one else in the

Baxley/Camargo Matter. - --

On June 29, 2001, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded Judge

Fowler for violating Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C(4), and 4D(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial

Conduct as well as Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution based, in large part, on

Judge Fowler’s relationship with Respondent.

Such acts and/or omissions on the part of Respondent as are described in Paragraphs IV, V,

VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII, hereinabove, which occurred on or after January 1, 1990,

constitute conduct which violates Rules 1.04(a), 1.04Co), 1.04(c), 1.09(a), 1.14(a), 1.14Co), 3.01,

3.03(a)(1), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(5), and 8.04(a)(6) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional

Conduct.

The complaint, which forms the basis of the Cause of Action hereinabove set forth, was

brought to the attention of the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas by

Seana Willing filing a complaint on or about July 18, 2001.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission prays for judgment that

Respondent be disciplined as the facts shall warrant; and that the Commission have such other relief

to which entitled, including restitution, direct expenses, costs of Court and reasonable attorney’s fees

.Kip Hu~hes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary Petiti~Page 7

mad legal assistant fees.

Respectfully submitted,

Dawn MillerChief Disciplinary Counsel

Ardita L. VickSenior Trial Attorney

State Bar of TexasLitigation - Dallas

3710 Rawlins

Suite 800

Dallas, Texas 75219

(214) 559-4353FAX (214) 559-4335

Ardita L. ViekState Bar Card No. 00786311

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER, THECOMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Signature of counsel above certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing FirstAmended Disciplinary Petition has been served upon Kip Hughes Allison, by and through hisattorney of record, Robert C. Hinton, 5015 Tracy Street, Dallas, Texas 75205, by certified mail,

return receipt requested, in accordance with Rule 21 a.Tex.R.Civ.P, on this~:~_ day of:Iuly, 2003.

Cc~ Hon. Gary L. Steel274t~ Judicial District Court

205 Courthouse

101 E. Court StreetSeguin, Texas 78155

Ardita Vick

Kip Hughes Allison - Second Amended Disciplinary. PetitionPage 8