When Your Opposing Counsel Is Wallace Jefferson John Council, Texas Lawyer | September 30, 2014
Wallace Jefferson, a partner in Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend Korey Howell Photography
Consider the state civil appellate challenges facing Chris Ponder. He is defending a Tarrant County elected official in a lawsuit. And his opposing counsel just happens to be Wallace Jefferson, the highlyrespected retired Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Another hurdle for the Tarrant County assistant district attorney is that according to the plaintiffs, the central issue in the case concerns access to justice for the indigent. That is a cause near and dear to the current Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Nathan Hecht. And it is Conder's job to convince the high court not to hear the petition filed by Jefferson. "Understand, first of all, I have immense respect for the former chief justice ... and his ability as an advocate. And this issue has had great counsel before," said Ponder, who is defending Tarrant County District Clerk Tom Wilder in Odell Campbell v. Thomas A. Wilder. Conder and his client have so far prevailed in the case, after it was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Fort Worth's Second Court of Appeals earlier this year in a split decision. Jefferson, a partner in Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend who left the high court last year, is part of a team of attorneys representing seven indigent plaintiffs who are seeking mandamus and injuntive relief against Wilder for collecting court costs against indigent parties. Jefferson's clients are all indigents who had family law cases processed in Tarrant County district courts, he said. "In a nutshell, the case is about whether somebody who qualifies under [Texas Rules of Civil Procedure] Rule 145 as an indigent must nevertheless pay court costs. I think there is a reasonable disagreement between the Tarrant County District Clerk on how you interpret language in a judgment that says each party shall bear its own costs," Jefferson said. "We believe that when a person qualifies under Rule 145 as an indigent, the amount of costs he or she must bear is zero.'' It's an important case that Jefferson hopes the high court will accept for review窶馬ot only for his indigent clients, but for all 254 district clerks in Texas. "I think the vast majority of clerks do not collect costs when a person is indigent under Rule 145," said Jefferson, who filed a petition for review before the high court in the case in July. "But I think there are lot of clerks that are awaiting an outcome in this case to decide whether it's feasible to go after these costs.'' Ponder filed a response to the petition on Sept. 16, arguing that the Second Court's judgment should stand. Specifically, Ponder's client argues that if the plaintiffs oppose the court costs in their cases, they should take that up with the trial judge who signed the final orders in their respective cases. "What we're effectively arguing is if they want to make an allegation that the clerk has taxed the costs incorrectly, that that issue should be raised with the judge that rendered the judgment,'' Ponder said. "This remedy is available to each and every one of them. All ... of the named plaintiffs have the option to go in front of the court and they're not going to be held to the standard of an attorney. But the main point is each of these
judgments specifically had language in them that said each party was to pay their costs. But for that language, they wouldn't have received a court cost bill." Jefferson said he will soon file a response the defendant's reply on his client's behalf in hopes the high court will accept the case for review. He also recognizes that access to justice for the poor has been an issue of concern for justices on his former court. When Hecht was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to replace Jefferson last year, Hecht noted that continuing the court's mission of improving access to justice for Texas' indigent residents was one of his to priorities [See "Court's Longest-Serving Justice Will Become Its Chief" Texas Lawyer, Sept. 10, 2013.] "It's of obvious of interest of the court, and has been for many years. But the court is used to divorcing any interest it may have from what it perceives the rule of law to be," Jefferson said. "This case is like any other and will be objectively analyzed by the court.'' Wilder, who said he's done nothing wrong, notes that he has followed a court cost collection plan that was approved by both the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office and the Tarrant County Commissioner's Court. "The litigants prepared these orders— well I can't ignore that. It has nothing to do with access to justice," Wilder said of his attempts to collect costs against the plaintiffs who all have older family law judgments. The standard language used in many Tarrant County family law cases has since changed, Wilder notes. "There's an easy remedy on this. Simply go back to the court and ask the [trial] judge to re-tax the costs," Wilder said. "That's been totally ignored.'' Meanwhile, Ponder said he's awaiting word from the Supreme Court on whether they'll need further briefing on the case. "They may request briefing on the merits before they grant of refuse it,'' Ponder said of his opponents' petition. "They've had great representation all along in this case. And I'll keep my head down, work hard and do the best I can.'' Read more: http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202671905286/When-Your-Opposing-Counsel-Is-WallaceJefferson#ixzz3Etp8qyml