FILED

BE FO RE THE DISTRI CT 10 GRIE V A NCE CO MM ITTE E DEC 29 2017

EVIDENTIARY PANEL 10-3
STATE BAR OF TEXAS State Bar of Texas
San Antonio Office
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER
DISCIPLINE,
Petitioner

V. 201703375

NICOLAS A. LAHOOD.
Respondent

EVIDENTIARY PETITION & REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

COMES NOW, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Petitioner, and would

respectfully show the following:

Parties

Petitioner is COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, a comn-ktee of the State Bar of

Texas. Respondent. NICOLAS A LAHOOD. State Bar No. 24030360, is an attorney

licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. Respondent may be served with process

by and through his attorney Wade Shelton at 600 Navarro, Suite 500, San Antonio, TX

78205.

Jurisdiction & Venue

This Disciplinary Proceeding is brought pursuant to the State Bar Act, Tex. Gov't.

Code Ann. Sec. 81.001, et seq., the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

and the Texas Rules of Disciptnary Procedure, The complaint which forms the basis of

this Disciplinary Proceeding was filed by Mark Stevens. Venue is proper in Bexar

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I of 6
County, Texas, pursuant to Rule 2.11(B) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,

because Bexar County, Texas is the county of Respondent's principal place of practice.

Professional Misconduct

The acts and omissions of Respondent, as hereinafter alleged : constitute

professional misconduct.

IV.

Factual Allegations

Respondent Nicholas A. LaHood is the elected district attorney of Boxer County.

In February of 2017: Respondent personally undertook prosecution of a murder case in

the 437th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. In connection with that case,

State of Texas vs Miguel Martinez, 2015-CR-4203. trial commenced on February 7,

2017 then recessed the next day after new facts were revealed by the prosecution to

defense attorneys Those facts were potentially beneficial to defensive theories of the

case and had been known for some time by the prosecution team. On February 8,

2017. defense attorneys indicated they would file a motion for continuance of the trial

the following day in order to assess the effect of the new information, and did so. Thus,

on the morning of February 9, 2017, without objection from the prosecution, a

continuance was granted in open court until February 14, 2017. Later February 9, a

conference, planned as a scheduling conference, was held in the chambers of 437th

District Court Judge Lori Valenzuela, in which three defense attorneys and three

prosecution attorneys (including Respondent) participated. In that conference, the

attorneys discussed the possibility of a mistrial and the potential of a claim of

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page 2 of 6
prosecutorial misconduct. At that point, Respondent threatened the defense attorneys

including statements that if they exercised the right of the defendant to allege
Eshut
prosecutorial misconduct, he would do whatever it took to down" the law practice or

practices of the defense attorneys without regard to the consequences to him. This

unlawful threat to damage professionally and economically in order prevent the exercise

of professional judgment by the defense and exercise of a right by the defendant, was

made by Respondent in his official capacity.

The court granted mistrial and reset the case for trial commencing in May. In

March of 2017, the defense moved to prevent another trial on grounds of double

jeopardy. At a hearing on that motion, Respondent testified under oath April 12. 2017

and made material misrepresentations regarding his conduct and the statements he

made during the February 9 meeting in the court's chambers, including falsely denying

his threats against the defense.

Respondent made extrajudicial statements to the press for dissemination to the

public with a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the ongoing adjudicatory

proceeding, including statements that the defendant in the case had acted with "sheer

callousness and cold bloodedness" (San Antonio Express-News February 8, 2017), was

"guilty" (San Antonio Express-News April 17. 2017), and a "killer" (www.KSAT.conn,

April 19, 2017).

Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

The conduct described above is in violation of the following Texas Disciplinary

Rules of Professional Conduct:

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page 3 of 6
3.07 - (a) in the course of representing a dent, a lawyer shall not make an
extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be
disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows
or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of
materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not
counsel or assist another person to make such a statement, (b) A
lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a
violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by
making an extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that
paragraph when the statement refers to: (1) the character,
credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a
criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony of a
party or witness; (2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could
result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the
offense; the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or
statement given by a defendant or suspect; or that persons refusal
or failure to make a statement; (3) the performance, refusal to
perform, or results of any examination or test: the refusal or failure of
a person to allow or submit to an examination or test; or the identity
or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; (4) any
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a
criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or (5)
information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to
be inadmissible as evidence in a trial arid would if disclosed create a
substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial. (c) A lawyer ordinarily
will not violate paragraph (a) by making an extrajudicial statement of
the type referred to in that paragraph when the lawyer merely states:
(1) the general nature of the claim or defense; (2) the information
contained in a public record; (3) that an investigation of the matter is
in progress, including the general scope of the investigation, the
offense, claim or defense involved; (4) except when prohibited by
law, the identity of the persons involved in the matter; (5) the
scheduling or result of any step in litigation; (6) a request for
assistance in obtaining evidence, and information necessary thereto;
(7) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person
involved, when there is a reason to believe that there exists the
likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public
interest; and (8) if a criminal case: (i) the identity, residence,
occupation and family status of the accused; (ii) if the accused has
not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in
apprehension of that person; (iii) the fact, time and place of arrest:
and (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or
agencies and the length of the investigation,

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Pacie 4 of 6
3.03(a)(1) - A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of material fact
or law to a tribunal.

8.04(a)(3) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud.

deceit or misrepresentation.

4.04 - (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no
substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a
third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the
legal rights of such a person. (b) A lawyer shall not present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to present: (1) criminal or
disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter; or
(2) civil, criminal or disciplinary charges against a complainant, a
witness, or a potential witness in a bar disciplinary proceeding solely
to prevent participation by the complainant, witness or potential
witness therein.

8.04(a)(2) A lawyer shall not commit a serious crime or commit any other
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

3.03(a)(5) - A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer or use evidence that the lawyer
knows to be false.

8.04(a)(1) - A lawyer shall not violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or
not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer
relationship.
VI.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that a judgment of

prefessional misconduct be entered against Respondent and that this Evidentiary Panel

order an appropriate sanction be imposed against Respondent as warranted by the

facts, including restitution if appropriate. Petitioner further prays to recover all

reasonable and necessary attorney fees and all costs associated with this proceeding.

Petitioner further prays for such other and additional relief, general or specific, at law or

in equity, to which it may show itself entitled.

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page 5 of 6
 vu.

Request for Disclosure

Pursuant to Rule 2.17(D) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Petitioner

request that Respondent disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service of this request, the

following information or material:

1. The correct name of the Respondent.

2. The factual bases of Respondent's claims or defenses.

3. The name, address, and telephone number of persons having

knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified
person's connection with this disciplinary proceeding.

4. For any testifying expert, the expert's name, address, and

telephone number: subject matter on which the expert will testify, and the
general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a
brief summary of the basis of them.

5. Any witness

statements. Respectfully

submitted,

LINDA A. ACEVEDO Chief

Disciplinary Counsel

PAUL H. HOMBURG Ill

Disciplinary Counsel

Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel State Bar

of Texas
711 Navarro, Suite 750
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Telephone: 210-208-6600
FAX: 210-208-6625..--
phombur©texasbar
,

4°.
c[12 ROMBURG III
4I-'61e Bar
No. 09934050
.

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

EVIDENTIARY PETITION and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Page 6 of 6