San Antonio Lawyer, November/December 2022

The

Official Publication of the San Antonio Bar Association November–December 2022

6

SABA Board of Directors

Left to right: Shari Mao, Lawrence Morales, II, Honorable Charlie Gonzalez, Judge Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez, Robin Thorner, Amanda Rivas, Chief Justice Rebeca Martinez, Daryl Harris photographed at the Johnson Street Pedestrian Bridge in San Antonio. Photography by Mewborne Photography.

ON THE COVER

6 The San Antonio Bar Embraces the Future: A Diversity Plan Inclusive of All By SABA Staff

FEATURES

10 The Impact of an Educator: A Profile of Alan K. Haynes

By Christian A. Garza, with Richard L. Garza

12 The Mentor Circles Program: Teaching Law Students Now What We Wish We Knew Then By Lawrence Morales, II

20 Famous Lawyers In American History: Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton By Harry Munsinger

DEPARTMENTS

5 Opinion: The Supreme Court Is Not Supreme. “We the People” Are.

By The Honorable Fred Biery

26 Fourth Court Update

By Justice Lori Valenzuela 28 Federal Court Update

By Soledad Valenciano, Melanie Fry, and Jeffrie Lewis

BAR BUSINESS

16 2022 San Antonio Bar Foundation Gala Benefit and Awards

By SABA Staff

San Antonio Lawyer® is published bimonthly. Copyright ©2022 San Antonio Bar Association. All rights reserved. Republication of San Antonio Lawyer content, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the express written permission of the San Antonio Bar Association. Please contact Editor in Chief Sara Murray regarding republication permission.

Views expressed in San Antonio Lawyer are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the San Antonio Bar Association. Publication of an advertisement does not imply endorsement of any product or service. San Antonio Lawyer, the San Antonio Bar Association, and the Publisher reserve the right to edit all materials and assume no responsibility for accuracy, errors, or omissions. San Antonio Lawyer and the Publisher do not knowingly accept false or misleading advertisements or editorials, and do not assume any responsibility should such advertising or editorials appear.

Contributions to San Antonio Lawyer are welcome, but the right is reserved to select materials to be published. Please send all correspondence to info@sabar.org

Advertising Inquiries:

Monarch Media & Consulting, Inc. Chellie Thompson 512.293.9277 chellie@monarchmediainc.com

Archives of San Antonio Lawyer are available at sabar.org. Send address changes to the San Antonio Bar Association.

EDITORS

BOARD OF EDITORS

Publication Design and Production: Monarch Media & Consulting, Inc.

Editor in Chief Sara Murray

Articles Editor Natalie Wilson

Departments Editor Leslie Sara Hyman Editor in Chief Emeritus Hon. Barbara Nellermoe

PUBLISHING PARTNER

Monarch Media & Consulting, Inc. 512.293.9277 | monarchmediainc.com

Design Direction Andrea Exter Design Sabrina Blackwell

Advertising Sales Chellie Thompson

Sara Murray, Chair

Pat H. Autry, Vice-Chair

Barry Beer

Amy E. Bitter

Ryan V. Cox

Paul Curl Shannon Greenan

Stephen H. Gordon

Leslie Sara Hyman Rob Killen

Thomas Lillibridge Rob Loree

Lauren Miller

Curt Moy Harry Munsinger

Hon. Barbara Nellermoe Steve Peirce

Donald R. Philbin Clay Robison

Regina Stone-Harris ileta! Sumner Natalie Wilson

Ex Officio Donna McElroy Chellie Thompson

For information on advertising in San Antonio Lawyer: Call 512.293.9277

Chellie Thompson, Monarch Media & Consulting, Inc. chellie@monarchmediainc.com

100 Dolorosa, Suite 500, San Antonio, Texas 78205 210.227.8822 | sabar.org

/ DIRECTORS

President Donna McElroy

President-Elect

Steve Chiscano

Treasurer Patricia “Patty”

Rouse Vargas

Secretary Nick Guinn

Immediate Past President

Lawrence Morales, II

Directors (2021-2023)

Kacy Cigarroa Tiffanie Clausewitz Grant McFarland Jaime Vasquez

Directors (2022-2024) Emma Cano Charla Davies Charles "Charlie" Deacon Jorge Herrera Executive Director June Moynihan

State Bar of Texas Directors

San Antonio Bar Foundation Chair Lawrence Morales, II

Association of Corporate Counsel South/Central TX

Bexar County Women’s Bar Association

Christian Legal Society

Defense Counsel of San Antonio

Federal Bar Association—San Antonio

Mexican-American Bar Association—San Antonio

San Antonio Black Lawyers Association

San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association

San Antonio Young Lawyers Association

TEX-ABOTA, American Board of Trial Advocates—San Antonio William S. Sessions Inn of Court

The Supreme Court Is Not Supreme. “We the People” Are.

By The Honorable Fred Biery

Election season is here. Recent Supreme Court and appellate court decisions have deferred to state legislatures to make rules for voting, some of which are believed to be overly restrictive.

Our barnacle-encrusted ship of state sails upon unchartered seas. On what shore it lands or breaks on the rocks to sink into the waters of history can only be decided by “We the People,” who persevere to overcome the perceived barriers imposed on their sacred right. Those who surrender without an effort, and to apathy, also cast a vote by their absence and the electoral consequences which follow.

In 1974, during the throes of Watergate, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan said, “My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.” Were she with us now, she, like others, would perhaps feel that faith shaken. Her words should once again resonate, inspiring the exercise of voting, no matter the burden nor where one lies on the political spectrum.

While these may not be Thomas Paine’s “times that try men’s souls,” significant numbers of American women find it a trying time for their anatomical autonomy. Others find it a time of celebration. The current Pandora’s Box of litigation can be closed by overwhelming majorities in the electoral process on either side of a particular issue.

Judicial decisions, even those of the Supreme Court, can be overruled or affirmed in a venue called the voting booth. Accordingly, matters can be decided by those who exercise: the right to vote, that is. If not, “We the People” and our Constitution are mere words on parchment.

The remedy for those with diminished trust in the judicial process is ballots, not bullets nor the front yards of justices and judges. We are the fallible umpires who call the legal balls and strikes as best we can to create a level playing field. Please leave us home alone.

Yes, it is burdensome to be a citizen in a democracy and inconvenient to go to the polls or serve on a jury, though those who gave their lives so we could, would wonder why they did

if we don’t. Democracy dies not always by conquering armies but by the slow death of sloth.

Had Chancellor Hitler and his minions prevailed, no one would be burdened with voting. Some of that regime, such as Wernher von Braun, redeemed themselves by becoming United States citizens and contributing to our nation. The descendants of others reap the harvest of American wealth, rights, and privileges, but choose not to till and nurture the soil of democracy by obtaining voting citizenship and its responsibilities. They also sow the seeds of democracy’s demise and are complicit in any rights lost, while those who vote sew its fabric.

In 1787, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.”

Time will tell. Fred Biery has served as a Texas and United States Judge for forty-four years.

By SABA Staff

Top row L-R: Daryl Harris, Lawrence Morales, II, Robin Thorner, Shari Mao

Bottom row L-R: Amanda Rivas, Chief Justice Rebeca Martinez, the Honorable Charlie Gonzalez, Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez

Location: Johnson Street Bridge, Cover and article photography by Mewborne Photography

The San Antonio Bar is known throughout the state as one of the friendliest and most welcoming legal communities in Texas. San Antonio lawyers take pride in their work and their reputation of being professional while being welcoming, open, and helpful, especially to visiting attorneys. Being a friendly community, though, does not automatically equate to being a fair community.

We work in a profession that rewards years of work experience and expertise honed through practice. San Antonio attorneys’ average age is fifty, and the average age of attorneys statewide is forty-eight. The decorum and time-honored traditions of the law required in our work may prevent us from noticing, and may even lead us to balk at, our newest colleagues’ demand for a different way of working. Requests for more transparency, open dialogue, and a seat at the decision table may seem premature or unearned.

For attorneys who went to law school beginning in the 1990s, diversity initiatives have been in our curriculum since they were called Equal Opportunity. As our world has evolved, so have these first initiatives into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs that promote work cultures of inclusion, more thoughtful self-assessments of personal biases, and candid conversations about allies and how to be one.

SABA’s Immediate Past President Lawrence Morales, II had served on DEI Committees at the American Bar Association and saw firsthand how important it was to have a practical and easy-to-understand DEI policy for a membership organization. As Morales puts it:

Many of us volunteer (or perhaps are “volun-told” by a senior attorney) to present CLE panels or are asked to co-write an article, and it is very easy to just open our phones and call people we know to present or write with us. When you are part of a large umbrella organization, it is vital that you have policies that remind organizers to cast a wider net. Our events, publications, and leadership should be representative of the entire organization and a clear, practical DEI policy keeps everyone more thoughtful in their planning.

The business case for diversity is strong,” Morales adds. “When there are people from different backgrounds at the table, the productivity of that table is far greater than it might otherwise be because everybody is contributing his or her unique perspective. You just would not have thought about certain ideas absent those people.” The key to ensuring that those diverse perspectives make it to the decision-making table, though, is “being deliberate when we are searching for someone to fill a position; making sure that we are thinking of every potential candidate.”

Unlike Equal Opportunity or Affirmative Action policies, DEI is not about filling quotas or checking boxes. “Nobody wants to feel like he or she is a token. We can think of it like a funnel,” Morales explains. “If we make decisions regarding hiring, we want to make sure that the opening part of that funnel includes every potentially qualified candidate. DEI is a deliberate effort to make sure that the funnel opening is wide, and that the process is inclusive of everyone.”

For the San Antonio Bar Association, it was important to have thoughtful answers about leadership values and to become more knowledgeable about the Association’s members and attorney demographics, and whether the organization was reflecting the future. In 2021, Morales introduced a Diversity Plan at the beginning of his bar presidency to create a practical policy of thoughtful inclusion and equity. Upon approval by the SABA Board of Directors, Morales and Chief Justice Rebeca Martinez convened a committee of SABA members to review and draft policies for the collection of member demographics, to create a more welcoming organization for prospective members, and

to craft programming to encourage the next generation of attorneys, especially first-generation lawyers.

As a former small law firm owner, Chief Justice Martinez relates, “No matter what size your workforce is—a small firm or solo practice—an inclusive, equitable workplace will always prove to outperform a more homogeneous work environment.” Such a work environment generates “an increased client base, engaged and happy employees whose potential and perspectives are respected, and ultimately increased profits. Moreover, DEI—which is more than just policies or programs—increases the currency an employer can enjoy in a competitive legal market.”

Former Congressman, District Court Judge, past SABA President, and committee member, the Honorable Charlie Gonzalez recalls, “We start with some introspection and first look within our own SABA. Do our membership, officers, committees, and programs foster and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion?” SABA strives “not only to raise SABA’s consciousness in appreciating the ongoing need to address DEI, but also to adopt operating procedures that factor in the furtherance of DEI.” Gonzalez reiterates that SABA’s commitment to DEI is steadfast: “SABA’s words must be matched by its deeds. In short, SABA will lead by example in hopes that doing so will engender greater DEI awareness and action by the local legal profession.”

The full Diversity Plan is available on SABA’s website, but the key components fall broadly into four key areas: accountability, education, pipeline, and communication.

Accountability

SABA will measure its baseline and its progress. “I think this is the most important piece of the DEI committee’s work,” Morales says. “It is hard to measure or answer what we don’t know. Prospective members want to know, ‘How many people like me do you have in membership?’ And we don’t always know that data.” The accountability subcommittee is crafting the final, voluntary member survey that will help us learn more about our members and help SABA identify members who are open to an opportunity to write, make presentations, or participate in leadership. SABA encourages all members to answer the survey to help create representative programs and benefits.

Pipeline

SABA will support scholarship and pipeline programming to encourage diversity in the future of the law. The San Antonio Bar Foundation recently named the first cohort of the Dawn Bruner Finlayson Fellows and awarded over $30,000 in scholarships to seven talented first-generation students who demonstrated—through exceptional academic performance and extracurricular activities—their aptitude and dedication to pursuing a legal career in San Antonio. Morales recounts, “It was Dawn’s vision to keep our most talented scholars practicing in San Antonio. This fellowship in her memory includes a mentoring component that will help these young people form connections to be immersed more quickly in our professional community.”

The SABA Law School Committee is also part of the St. Mary’s University School of Law Mentor Circle Program, launched by past Committee Chair Sara Dysart and the Law School’s Assistant Dean for Career Strategy, Robin Thorner. “The mentoring piece is key to helping students see that they are joining a group of professionals that benefit from their being successful attorneys,” reminds Morales. The Law School’s Dean Patricia Roberts, also a Committee Member, reveals that more than a quarter of the most recent first-year class are first-generation law students. She explains that “it matters greatly” that the Law School and SABA encourage “the creation of opportunity” for first-generation law students, and that once they arrive on campus, “we

completely support them so that they do feel like they belong—like this is their purpose and their path.” Dean Roberts knows that creating a pipeline into law school is not enough; there also has to be a pathway to a successful career after graduation. “We not only want to ensure that they are successful in the pursuit of their legal studies, but also—beyond that—in their practices as attorneys, judges, and members of the bar and our communities,” Roberts adds.

Education and Fellowship

SABA will host CLEs and mixers to enable our members to learn new trends and how to put DEI policies into practice. SABA will also host events for members of underrepresented communities to share their experiences, and for decision-makers to learn how to be an ally.

In a minority-majority city, we may think we are already DEI trailblazers. We have the Fourth Court of Appeals which is 100% female, and many of our most prominent legal legends are first-generation attorneys. While, nationwide, the current demographic of law firm decision-makers fits mostly into the Baby Boomer/Gen X category, the stereotypes of the “challenging” millennials and Gen Z workforce are harmful and create assumptions and hesitation when discussing workplace expectations.

1. Say YES if you are invited to participate!

2. Are you a member of an affinity bar? Co-host an event with another affinity bar that does not share a lot of the same members.

3. Attend an event hosted by a legal organization to which you do not belong.

4. If you are organizing a CLE panel, challenge yourself to invite only professionals who are not in your phone contact list.

5. Are you on the nominating committee for your group? Invite members you do not know well to sit on the committee with you to help identify new leaders.

6. Volunteer to write for San Antonio Lawyer. Share your insights.

Morales explains, “I think that the best DEI-styled panels are ones in which various attorneys share how they have benefited from a formal DEI policy. It can be as simple as expanding where a firm posts its job openings, which in turn results in more diverse applications.” DEI policy does not have to be overwhelming, and it “does not automatically mean an expensive all-day workshop, although there are very good ones out there,” he reassures.

As with many challenges, the key to emerging successfully is keeping dialogue open. As Dean Roberts adds, “For people who are first in any position, we have to keep communication open so that the individuals who are blazing that trail feel comfortable expressing themselves. We need to have a safe method of communication so that we are open to listening to concerns.”

Having responsive DEI policies in place encourages young attorneys entering the practice to help their organizations adapt to the times, evolve, and expand their values. When new associates join firms and know there is a legal community that not only acknowledges their existence, but also celebrates it, DEI becomes a reality. Celebrating the differences in people across the spectrum of race, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, disability status, and national origin is a major step

So, what can you do personally to expand opportunities in the San Antonio legal community?

toward more innovative and engaging DEI policies. By opening our minds to the idea of being more intentional and thoughtful when it comes to responding to the needs of our community, we will become part of the change.

Be the Change—Share Your Experience

San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the United States. It is growing by 200,000 residents every five years. As our city grows, we must grow and evolve, as well. SABA invites you to be the authors of the programs to welcome our newest colleagues in the San Antonio Bar community. “As San Antonio continues to grow, so must the legal community,” says Chief Justice Martinez.

Assistant District Attorney, WestPoint graduate, Army veteran, and committee member Daryl Harris cautions that those who deny the need for DEI awareness and programs must “face the fact that we can only go forward” while remaining cognizant “that the past has shaped our respective perceptions of what is possible. If we can do that individually, then ideally individual firms/legal organizations can evolve, and so can our local bar.”

When the member survey is sent, SABA would benefit from your input. This is your San Antonio Bar Association, and it is only as strong as the members. We encourage you to embrace the future and share your experience, your talent, and your ideas.

To read more about the Mentoring Circles, see article on page 14.

Be a Maverick – Be like Maury

With the recent reboot of the movie Top Gun featuring the now wizened, but still feisty, pilot with the call sign “Maverick,” it is worth reminding San Antonio that the term “maverick” stems from famed attorney, rancher, signer of the Texas Constitution, and former San Antonio Mayor Samuel Maverick. Maverick chose not to brand his cattle, and this flouting of convention became a badge of honor. Depending on what side you were on, calling someone a maverick was either a compliment or insult. The Maverick family was representative of the values of San Antonio’s first residents and entrepreneurs, who craved autonomy, mutual respect, and (generally) being given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Samuel’s grandson, Maury Maverick, Sr. was an attorney and San Antonio Bar President in 1917. He was famously outspoken in politics and went on to serve in Congress and later as Mayor of San Antonio. He was a great defender of civil liberties and was routinely acknowledged as the progressive who opened up San Antonio government opportunities and engagement with the communities of color in San Antonio in the 1930s. Lawyers are always the trailblazers of social change. Be like Maverick, one of the San Antonio Bar’s finest.

The Impact of an Educator: A Profile of Alan K. Haynes

By Christian A. Garza, with Richard L. Garza

It was a magnificent, early summer day in Manhattan’s Financial District. The air was crisp. The sun was shining. Alan Haynes was walking towards the federal courthouse, as he had done countless times. This time, it was for an altogether different occasion. A former student was being sworn in to one of the most prestigious appellate courts in the nation. Alongside him were several other former students with their own remarkable careers. They soon arrived at the awe-inspiring Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse and made their way into the majestic celebratory courtroom of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On this day, June 3, 2022, Myrna Pérez, a graduate of San Antonio Douglas MacArthur High School and Columbia Law School, was to be sworn in as a judge on this court. Hundreds of family, friends, and wellwishers were in attendance, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, members of the federal judiciary, and numerous luminaries in the New York legal community. In the second row of the courtroom sat Alan Haynes. He was a dignitary in his own right, as he was Judge Pérez’s mentor over the past three decades.

Alan Keith Haynes is many things: An educator, a prosecutor, and a law school administrator. But of all things, perhaps he is most fulfilled by being a mentor to generations of high school speech and debate students. I was such a student, fortunate enough to call him not only my mentor, but also my longtime friend. I have known Alan Haynes since August 1990, when I was a fourteen-year-old freshman at MacArthur High School. I will never forget the first day that I met Mr. Haynes and the distinct impression that he made on me and the other new debaters. So much has happened since then. Little did I know that, thirty-two years later, I would be writing in praise of this teacher non pareil (and still, after all this time, admiringly referring to him as “Mr. Haynes”).

A child of San Antonio, Mr. Haynes grew up on the West Side of town. He and his brother were raised by his mother and stepfather. He graduated from Holy Cross of San Antonio in 1976 and attended UTSA, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1979. Mr. Haynes became a World History and United States History teacher in 1980. The next year, he became a speech and debate coach at San Antonio’s

Lee High School. He helped develop the program into a powerhouse in cross-examination debate, winning the Texas state championship in 1988 and the national championship in 1989. Over the next five years, he coached a diverse group of Lee and MacArthur students that went on to win state championships and numerous national tournaments. Due to his efforts (and those of his mentors), the San Antonio public school system reached an unprecedented level of success in speech and debate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Haynes always expected much of his students. His expectations that one be both intellectually honest and thoughtful have carried me for more than twenty years as a lawyer and now a judge. He has a great love for his students and an earnest desire for their success in education and life.

—Hon. Daniel O’Brien, Lee H.S. Class of 1991; Baylor Univ. Law School Class of 2001; Hays County Judge, County Court at Law No.3 in Dripping Springs, Texas.

Mr. Haynes’ former students have gone on to myriad successful careers. Below are tributes to Mr. Haynes from several of his former students:

“

As a teacher and coach, Mr. Haynes instilled the values of tremendous dedication to one’s craft, as well as a laser-like focus on academic achievement. Importantly, he developed long-lasting relationships with the parents of his students, such as my father, attorney Richard L. Garza, earning their trust, support, and admiration. As high school students, we would travel for tournaments across Texas, as well as to places like Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, and Washington, D.C. While on the road, the debate parents knew that we were all in good hands with Mr. Haynes. He created a sense of teamwork, mutual respect, and camaraderie among his students, which in some cases lasts to this day. Most, if not all, of his debaters graduated at the top of their high school classes, were National Merit Scholars, or were accomplished in other extracurricular activities. As with any good student-teacher relationship, their success was in many ways his success.

In 1994, Mr. Haynes made the bold decision to pursue a career in the law (something that he had always dreamed about doing after teaching). He was accepted into many law schools but decided on Northeastern Law School in Boston. After law school graduation and passing both the Massachusetts and New York bar exams, he served as an assistant district attorney for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan (1997-2002) and an associate counsel for the New York State United Teachers (2002-2005). In both pursuits, he became extremely familiar with the courtrooms of New York City. After eight years as a practicing lawyer, he then made a meaningful career switch, moving on to the world of law school administration.

Mr. Haynes always went the extra mile. His drive to put in the time with the team and prepare us to succeed was admirable. I think it is a tribute to Mr. Haynes that so many former students continue to stay in touch because of the connection they formed with him many years ago. His dedication to educating and helping his students has always come through.

—Mr. Franklin Rubinstein, MacArthur H.S. Class of 1993; Univ. of Chicago Law School Class of 2001; Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Washington, D.C.

During his time in academia, Mr. Haynes has been a tireless advocate for diversity in the legal profession. From 2005 to 2008, he was the associate director of career services and diversity outreach advisor at Brooklyn Law School. He then worked at the University of Minnesota Law School as Director of the Career Center (2008-2015) and as chair of the law school’s diversity committee. In those positions, he greatly enhanced the law school experience for many students by bringing interviews onto the campus, expanding off-campus interview programs in major markets, and counseling those seeking opportunities in the public and private sectors. In Minnesota, he co-chaired the State Bar Association’s Self-Audit on Gender Equity and Diversity and chaired the State Bar Association Diversity Committee. In recognition of his efforts, he received the Hennepin County (Minneapolis) Diversity Attorney of the Year award for assisting in preserving the 1L diversity clerkship program in Hennepin County.

Mr. Haynes taught me some fundamental skills—how to build an argument, how to put arguments together so that they work together systematically, how to reason across different systems of arguments, and how to convey all those arguments to different types of audiences. Research, writing, and public speaking—all of that, too. He also taught me how to work as part of an intellectual team, how to rely on others, and how to support them. These skills could have taken me in all sorts of directions, but they are a natural fit for a career in law and especially for teaching law.

—Prof. Micah Schwartzman, MacArthur H.S. 1990-1992; Univ. of Virginia Law School Class of 2005; Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law and Director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democrac at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, Virginia.

MEDIATIONS, PLLC

“

“

co-workers! It has been really lovely

work alongside him for

last seven years at St. Mary’s Law. It is always nice to reconnect with someone as an adult and forge a new kind of friendship on more equal terms. We love telling everyone we meet that he was my high school debate coach!

—Ms. Robin Thorner, Lee H.S. Class of 1991; N.Y.U. Law School Class of 1999; Assistant Dean of Career Strategy at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio.

Mr. Haynes returned home to San Antonio in 2015, joining the administration of St. Mary’s University School of Law. He initially served as the Assistant Dean for Law Student Affairs. Patricia Roberts, Dean of St. Mary’s University School of Law, recognized his passion in working on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues and asked him if he would be interested in teaching Legal Research and Writing and to serve as the Director of Pipeline Initiatives. Dean Roberts told him: “You light up when you teach.” He accepted the Dean’s invitation with alacrity. Concerning his role as Director of Pipeline Initiatives, Mr. Haynes recently told me: “I was convinced it was a perfect fit for me, given my passion to increase the diversity of the legal profession. My work

now is to increase the awareness of high school, community college, and undergraduate university students about law school and the legal profession. It is my hope that I can do my part to increase the diversity of the legal profession, and my new role at St. Mary’s School of Law gives me the ability to do that.”

Displaying the same intensity and steadfastness from his days as a high school debate coach, Mr. Haynes has become quite the trailblazer with regard to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts while working as a law school administrator. He has presented and published on important topics such as “The Vanishing African American Male in Law Schools,” “Achieving Diversity,” and “Recognizing our Biases with Clients and Colleagues.”

This semester at St. Mary’s School of Law, he teaches a course on Race and the Law, which analyzes the interplay between race and justice. In the spring semester, he will teach the inaugural course on Introduction to American Law for undergraduate students at the University. This past summer, he hosted Law and Leadership Camps at St. Mary’s School of Law for almost eighty high school students from Marshall Law and Medical Services High School and the Young Women’s Leadership Academy. He also founded a Street Law Chapter at the law school, where law students go into local high schools and teach high school students about constitutional law issues. He also serves on the boards of Marshall Law and Medical Services High School and Holy Cross of San Antonio. In the spring of 2022, based on his work with Marshall Law and Medical Services High School, he was recognized as an outstanding partner of the year by Northside Independent School District.

Even with this full plate, he continues to make time to serve his alma mater, volunteering as a debate coach at Holy Cross of San Antonio. Currently, Holy Cross has a student body that is 95% Hispanic. He beams when speaking about students such as Jason Fuller, one of this top Holy Cross debate students. Jason graduated last May as the class valedictorian and is now attending Princeton University on full scholarship. From campus, Jason wrote:

Mr. Haynes was instrumental in my journey to Princeton . . . . I would not be here if it were not for his unwavering support. Mr. Haynes is a person who believes in the potential of people and has influenced a generation of leaders and trailblazers that have gone on to shape the world. He saw my potential and always encouraged me to further my education and explore my passions. I am forever grateful to have met Mr. Haynes. He is an inspiration and a figure that has changed our community for the better.

Mr. Haynes’s life continues to be enriched by students such as Jason, as this is what he calls “the beauty of teaching.”

Given this background, it should come as no surprise that many of his debaters went on to illustrious careers in the legal profession. Mr. Haynes counts current law professors, judges, law firm partners, and general counsel as his former students. His debate students went on to Yale, Stanford, Columbia, and other

law schools. Several became clerks for the federal district and appellate court judges, and two of his former students clerked for United States Supreme Court justices.

The impact of an educator can last of lifetime, as was manifest at Judge Pérez’s investiture. After introductory remarks from Senator Schumer, two federal district judges, and several civic leaders, Judge Pérez—the first Latina on the Second Circuit since the elevation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court—next thanked those that had a helping hand on her rise to the federal appellate bench. Before all in attendance, she specifically mentioned Mr. Haynes as a guiding force in her life as a lawyer. It was an incredibly moving moment. I was sitting right next to him. Joyful tears were flowing. His sense of pride and accomplishment were readily apparent.

As we walked away from the courtroom ceremony, Mr. Haynes, my father, and I had some time for reflection. Over thirty years of mentorship and friendship is truly something to behold. We were grateful to have this time together in New York, even if only for a day. We all knew that day would remain far longer in our memories.

Christian A. Garza is a 1994 graduate of Douglas MacArthur High School and a 2001 graduate of Yale Law School. He clerked for the Chief Judge of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and is now Senior Counsel for Enterprise Products in Houston. This year, he is serving as the Chairman of the Board of the Houston Bar Foundation.

Richard L. Garza is a 1964 graduate of Louis W. Fox Technical High School and a graduate of Texas Southern University School of Law. He is a member of the San Antonio Bar Association. He is retired and enjoys visiting with his family in San Antonio and Houston and with fellow Vietnam War veterans.

June 3, 2022: At the investiture of Myrna Perez as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, New York. Left to right: Judge Perez; University of Virginia Law Professor Micah Schwartzman; St. Mary’s University School of Law Professor Alan Haynes; and fellow debate classmate Robert Root, who is now the debate coach at Holmes High School in San Antonio.

• Experienced, having conducted more than 25,000 mediations since 1989 with more than 850 years’ experience practicing law

• Committed to the mediation process and devoted to the ethical practice of law

• Covered by the AAM Member Insurance Group Policy, an arbitrator and mediator professional liability insurance

of Practice

John Boyce, III 210.736.2224 jkbiii@boyceadr.com Leslie Byrd 210.229.3460 leslie.byrd@bracewell.com Debbie Cotton 210.338.1034 info@cottonlawfirm.net Michael Curry 512.474.5573 mcmediate@msn.com Aric J. Garza 210.225.2961 aric@sabusinessattorney.com Charles Hanor 210.829.2002 chanor@hanor.com Ronald Hornberger 210.734.7092 rhornberger@pg-law.com Gary Javore 210.733.6235 gary@jcjclaw.com Daniel Kustoff 210.614.9444 dkustoff@salegal.com

J.K. Leonard 210.445.8817 jk@jkladr.com Cheryl McMullan, Emeritus 210.824.8120 attyelder@aol.com Dan Naranjo 210.710.4198 dan@naranjolaw.com Patricia Oviatt 210.250.6013 poviatt@clarkhill.com Jamie Patterson 210.828.2058 jamie@braychappell.com Diego J. Peña 817.575.9854 diego@thepenalawgroup.com Don Philbin 210.212.7100 don.philbin@adrtoolbox.com Edward Pina 210.614.6400 epina@arielhouse.com Richard L. Reed, Sr. 210.451.6920 rreed@coatsrose.com

Wade Shelton 210.349.0515 wshelton@shelton-valadez.com

Thomas Smith 210.227.7565 smith@tjsmithlaw.com John Specia 210.734.7092 jspecia@pg-law.com Phylis Speedlin 210.405.4149 phylis@justicespeedlin.com Lisa Tatum 210.249.2981 ltatum@tatum-law.com William Towns 210.819.7453 bill.towns@townsadr.com James Upton 361.884.0616 jupton@umhlaw.com Brittany Weil 361.548.2611 brittanymweil@gmail.com

Recommended by Judges and Attorneys

Professor Haynes teaching at St. Mary’s University School of Law.

The Mentor Circles Program :

Teaching Law Students Now What We Wish We Knew Then

By Lawrence Morales, II

Walking out of the bar exam, I knew it all. The Rule Against Perpetuities? No problem. The Fireman’s Rule? A piece of cake. The Hillmon Exception to Hearsay? Elementary. So, as I walked into the Bell County Courthouse for my first hearing, I felt like Iron Man. With my sparkling new briefcase and freshly polished wingtips, I was the first person in the courtroom, anxiously awaiting my moment to shine. After the Judge read the docket without calling my case, I approached the clerk, told her my case number, and respectfully suggested that the Judge mistakenly overlooked my case. She chuckled and said, “No, you mistakenly went to the wrong courthouse. District Court is down the street.”

Although our law schools provide invaluable legal training, there will always be lessons that can only be absorbed through the taxing (and often embarrassing) process of falling on one’s face. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could travel back in time to pass those lessons on to our younger selves? Although we are not quite there yet, SABA and St. Mary’s University School of Law have discovered the next best thing. In July 2020, SABA Members Mary Stich and Sara Dysart approached Dean Patricia Roberts about starting a program to bring experienced attorneys together with law students in confidential, small groups to discuss practice areas and work settings, real world ethical dilemmas, career strategies, and other career-enhancing topics that are not typically addressed in the classroom. Dean Roberts immediately embraced the idea: “As someone who benefited greatly from mentors throughout my education and my career, I was excited about the possibility of offering formal mentorship from attorneys and judges in the community to our second- and third-year students.” To ensure the success of the program, Dean Roberts engaged Robin Thorner—Assistant Dean and Adjunct Professor—to work with Mary and Sara to launch a pilot Mentor Circles Program in the Fall 2020 semester.

Mayra Carranza, an in-house attorney at Medable, describes Mentor Circles as “an enriching experience for both the mentors and the law students; it provides law students with an invaluable opportunity to connect with members of the legal community, both bench and bar, and allows mentors to pay it forward by offering their diverse perspectives and experiences.”

Unlike traditional and often uncomfortable one-on-one mentorship programs that feel like a first date, the Mentors Circles Program pairs two lawyers with groups of three to six students who meet monthly, either in person or virtually. Each group has a student leader, who: (1) coordinates with the mentors about topics the students want to discuss and how the discussion format should look; and (2) handles the logistics of scheduling meetings. Having two attorneys in each mentor circle allows for dynamic conversations and accommodates any conflicts with an attorney’s busy schedule. The unique format fosters a welcoming environment where students are free to ask questions they may be uncomfortable asking in an interview with a prospective employer. “So much of the legal field is not openly discussed, but Mentor Circles give students the ability to ask the tough and taboo questions in a safe environment,” notes Cyrilla-Lyn Thompson, a 3L student who has

found so much value in the program that Thompson is participating for the third time this fall.

In just two years, the Mentor Circles Program has exploded because of the leadership, hard work, and dedication of Dean Thorner, Mary Stich, and Sara Dysart. The interest from both attorney-mentors and student-mentees has been remarkable. When the program launched in Fall 2020, there were thirty-three mentors meeting with eightyseven law students in thirteen Mentor Circles. In just four semesters, 140 attorneys have now mentored over 350 students, with more than 100 new students registered for the program this semester. Of course, recruiting mentors, student leaders, and mentees requires significant back-office support and liaising with alumni, and Dean Roberts praises Dean Thorner and her team, which now includes Amanda Rivas, the law school’s Director of Externships, for “stepping in and making sure that we have an effective process, ensuring its success, and continuing to refine the process in order to improve each iteration.”

Demonstrating the collegiality of our San Antonio legal community, the roster of mentors who have volunteered their time to participate in the program represents a Who’s Who of the San Antonio legal community, including former Texas Supreme Court Justice Paul Green, Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals Rebeca Martinez, former Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals Sandee Bryan Marion, and the late former President of the State Bar of Texas Allan Dubois. The other mentors represent an intentionally diverse cross section of our legal community. Dean Roberts notes that, with this caliber and diversity of mentors, several students and alumni can directly credit their jobs to Mentor Circles.

The mentees are not the only beneficiaries of the program. Gerry Goldstein, who has volunteered as a mentor almost every semester, recognizes that “the mentors probably get a lot more out of the sessions than the mentees!” Peter Hosey, a partner at Jackson Walker, echoes Gerry’s sentiment: “We owe it to law students to help them whenever we can. I just hope that they got as much out of it as I did.” Mayra Carranza, an in-house attorney at Medable, describes Mentor Circles as “an enriching experience for both the mentors and the law students; it provides law students with an invaluable opportunity to connect with members of the legal community, both bench and bar, and allows mentors to pay it forward by offering their diverse perspectives and experiences.”

Former SABA President Marty Truss—who has been involved in nearly every St. Mary’s student-focused initiative in his twenty-six

years as a lawyer—says, “Mentors Circles is far and away the most impactful program I’ve had the pleasure to participate in. It is an immensely rewarding experience to try to help mentor these brilliant and energetic future lawyers.”

Having served as a mentor in the program myself, it is refreshing to see how eager the students are to absorb whatever wisdom (and yes, humiliating experiences) we are willing to share. The mentorship gives them an opportunity to see ahead as they plan their careers and navigate around obstacles that may not yet be visible from their current vantage point. The nuggets each mentee takes away from the program vary for each student. For my mentees, one of the lessons is, of course, to always double-check you are at the correct courthouse. For 3L Isabel Campos, the important takeaway is to “be involved and meet people.” For 3L Brenda Marichalar, it is hearing stories about how attorneys first started their practices: “Their vulnerability in sharing their mistakes reminds me that we all start somewhere, and that we just have to keep going.” As 3L Karen Crawford explains: “Knowledge and performance are key, but relationships truly matter. Treat everyone with dignity and respect because lawyering requires playing nice in the sandbox.” Couldn’t we all benefit from gems like this?!

If you are interested in participating in the next Mentors Circles Program, please contact Dean Thorner at mentorcircles@stmarytx.edu

Lawrence Morales, II is an attorney at the Morales Law Firm and the Immediate Past President of the San Antonio Bar Association.

Robin Thorner and Amanda Rivas

Mentor Circle in law library rare book room. Left to right: Eric Michael Garza, Mary Stich, Caitlin Hennesy, Hanna Orendain, Raven Pena, Sherack Malakwu

2022 San Antonio Bar Foundation Gala Benefit and Awards

AWARD RECIPIENTS

The sold-out 2022 San Antonio Bar Foundation Gala Benefit and Awards was held September 24 at the Sky Room. Over 600 friends celebrated French Quarter style with NOLA specialties that included jazz, jester, fortune teller and a second line. Honorary Gala Co-Chairs, Charlie Gonzalez and Rebecca Simmons introduced our first class of Finlayson Fellows and Awards were presented by the San Antonio Young Lawyers Association, the San Antonio Bar Foundation, and the San Antonio Bar Association to recognize outstanding contributions by members and applaud career achievement. Over $100,000 was raised to support bar foundation programs, civic education, scholarship and probono services. Congratulations to our awardees!

Finlayson

Lifetime Achievement –The Joe Frazier Brown, Sr. Award of Excellence from SABA President, Donna McElroy

From left to right: Gabrielle Martinez, Amy Lewis, Falak Momin, Kaitlyn Valderas, Jaslene Walia, Daisy Ramirez, Gerardo Villegas

“The Dawn Finlayson Fellowship is presented by the San Antonio Bar Foundation to deserving first-generation students pursuing a legal career in San Antonio. Our inaugural 2022 Finlayson Fellows are an impressive cohort of student leaders. The undergraduate students have an average GPA of 3.8, and the law students are in the top 10% of their class. They work to pay for school and family expenses and still carve out time to serve as class leaders and volunteers. They are the next generation of San Antonio Bar trailblazers.”

Lifetime Achievement Award: Jane Bockus

Fellows

AWARD WINNERS

Liberty Bell: Tashawna Taylor-Hall

“SALSA’s main goal is to mobilize legal volunteers and transform the lives of those in need. That’s something that cannot be done without the help and time volunteer attorneys contribute, so I want to take this moment to say thank you to all of the individuals who believe in what we are doing and are dedicated to furthering the mission of the organization.”

—Tashawna Taylor-Hall

Outstanding Mentor: Allan DuBois

“To be recognized as an outstanding leader, he would be humbled. He was never seeking kudos. He truly believed in service to others, not just as an attorney, but as a friend . … I believe his mentoring was successful because of his honesty, humility, intelligence, and sincere belief in each person—no matter their gender, age, career, or status. He would be honored and humbled to know that he is viewed as an outstanding mentor by the SA Young Lawyers, and worthy of emulating.”

—Pam DuBois

“Rather than either cutting the quality of representation or burdening the criminal defense bar with, essentially, pro bono work Bexar County should, as Gideon v. Wainwright promises, pay the cost of fair, effective indigent defense so that those accused of crime can stand on equal footing with those that would prosecute them. We ask for the support, endorsement, and leadership from the San Antonio legal community as we proceed in our efforts.” —Zoe Russell

Allan DuBois

Tashawna Taylor-Hall accepting her 2022 SAYLA Liberty Bell Award

Pam DuBois (center) accepting the 2022 SAYLA Outstanding Mentor Award on behalf of her husband, Allan DuBois

Friends and members of SABA dancing French Quarter style.

Past SABA Presidents, the Hon. Charlie Gonzalez and Lamont Jefferson.

Maggie Brown of Lindow, Stephens & Shultz raising her paddle for the Dawn Bruner Finlayson Fellowship.

SAYLA Outstanding Young Lawyer: Zoe Russell

Zoe Russell accepting her 2022 SAYLA Outstanding Young Lawyer Award

• HIPPA Compliance (TX HB300 applies)

• Cloud: storage, files, computers, servers

• Computers: repairs, upgrades, purchases, encryption

• Servers: setup, repairs, maintenance, purchases

• Email: domains, migration, backup, encryption

• Office 365: email, OneDrive, backup and Office software

• VoIP phones: includes Quality of Service (QoS) and backup internet

• Network: devices, setup, repairs, maintenance

• Call when you need us or customized service options available

• Remote and on-site support, antivirus programs, virus removal, maintenance

AWARD WINNERS

Outstanding Lawyer in Community Service: Phil

“In our community, we have great needs in so many areas: education, healthcare, employment, legal services, childcare, and on and on. Nonprofit organizations throughout this community attempt to make the lives of our citizens better . … I encourage each of you to volunteer with a not-for-profit organization, whose mission and your heart, match up. To whom much has been given, much will be required. I hope you will answer the call.”

“I also need to thank my family . … finally, there’s my husband, Master Sergeant (Retired) James Henry Sumner IV. Jay once said to me, ‘You know, when you developed congestive heart failure, I think you literally gave your heart to that job.’ And I think he’s right, but you know, I couldn’t think of any better job to have given it to.” —ileta! Sumner

Phil Watkins accepting the 2022 SABF Outstanding Lawyer in Community Service Award

Watkins

ileta! Sumner accepting the 2022 SABF Peacemaker Award

SABF: Peacemaker: ileta! Sumner

Honorary Gala Co-Chairs, Charlie Gonzalez and Rebecca Simmons helped

$55,000 in five minutes for the Dawn Bruner Finlayson Fellowship

TREASURY SECRETARY

Alexander Hamilton

By Harry Munsinger

Alexander Hamilton was born on January 11, 1755, in the West Indies.1 His maternal grandparents owned a large sugar plantation and his father, James Hamilton, was a Scottish Lord who abandoned his family in 1765. When he was twelve, Hamilton’s mother died from yellow fever. Hamilton then lived with his uncle and worked as a clerk for the New York trading house of Beekman and Cruger in the West Indies. When the owners moved to New York, Hamilton received control of the company’s trading business in the West Indies. He was a successful trader and manager. When a hurricane came through the islands, he observed the storm and wrote a letter to the local newspaper describing the experience. Hugh Knox, a preacher living in the Caribbean, recognized Hamilton’s intelligence and sent him to America for a proper education.

Hamilton attended King’s College in New York (now Columbia University). He was a bright student and developed an interest in politics, believing freedom from Britain was essential because heavy taxes were ruining the colonies. He recommended Americans boycott British manufactured goods and published A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress in which he asserted that Americans have a natural right to manage their own affairs.2 The pamphlet made Hamilton a celebrity because he wrote well, thought clearly, and constructed arguments

that impressed important people. When the American Revolution began, Hamilton joined the New York militia and taught himself military tactics and the handling of cannons. The Continental Congress named George Washington commander of the Continental Army to defend New York City against invading British troops, and Hamilton joined Washington on Long Island.

Hamilton and his artillery unit covered Washington’s retreat after the British drove the Continental Army out of New York, and he handled the guns well during the retreat. After twin victories in New Jersey, Washington asked Hamilton to become his aide-decamp.3 Hamilton was reluctant to accept a desk job on Washington’s staff, but he had the necessary skills because he knew logistics, accounts, and finance. Washington relied on Hamilton to draft clear memos explaining his requirements and strategy to Congress and his officers. Hamilton became indispensable to Washington, who often assigned him sensitive tasks that required diplomacy and tact. Washington and Hamilton agreed on most issues, but they had different views about slavery. Washington was a Virginia slave owner while Hamilton felt slavery was cruel and should be abolished.

Hamilton and Washington had a serious misunderstanding when Washington asked to speak with him, and Hamilton replied that he would return in a few minutes after he delivered an important letter. Hamilton

delivered the letter, but rather than returning immediately to see Washington, he spent time chatting with the Marquise de Lafayette. Washington was furious that Hamilton had made him wait and told Hamilton he had disrespected his commander. Hamilton said he did not realize he had disrespected Washington, but if that was how he felt, it was time for Hamilton to resign from his staff and take command of a regiment. Washington sent an apology to Hamilton, but he was not willing to forgive Washington because he was tired of being ordered around, felt insulted, and wanted an independent command. Hamilton had a violent temper that created serious difficulties for him later in life.

The Continental Congress

At the beginning of the Revolution, the thirteen states drafted Articles of Confederation forming a loose association of states to manage and pay for the war. However, the Continental Congress was weak and could not tax the states to fund the war, so it resorted to printing money, causing runaway inflation, and saddling the country with enormous debts and a worthless currency. America was essentially bankrupt after the war because the states would not cooperate to pay off the debts they had incurred. Hamilton proposed a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and form a strong central government, but his suggestion was ignored until 1787. Hamilton

1755–1804

resigned after the war, studied law, passed the New York bar exam, and opened a practice in New York. He favored a strong central government rather than a weak association of states, but many Americans were wary of a government that might oppress them.

Hamilton published a paper outlining his ideas about managing the country’s finances and paying off the national debt. He advocated establishing a central bank, nationalizing war debts, and issuing federal bonds to pay off the national debts and serve as a store of wealth. In 1783, Hamilton started a lucrative law practice on Wall Street, defending American Tories who had left the colonies during the war and wanted to reclaim their property or receive compensation. One of his early clients was Elizabeth Rutgers, a wealthy widow who fled New York for Canada when war broke out. Her property was confiscated. After the war, Hamilton settled Mrs. Rutgers’s claim, and she was reimbursed for her land. Meanwhile, the Continental Congress faced a rebellion in the Northeast.

Shay’s Rebellion4

In the 1780s, many Massachusetts farmers faced heavy debts from buying land after the war. The post-war recession caused many of them to lose their farms and go to prison because they could not pay their debts (America had debtors’ prisons at that time). These difficult economic conditions triggered an armed uprising led by Daniel Shay, an ex-revolutionary soldier, intent on liberating his imprisoned neighbors. The governor of Massachusetts hired mercenaries to crush the rebellion, but Shay’s uprising frightened state authorities and led to calls for a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and strengthen the central government to deal with armed unrest.

The Constitutional Convention

Hamilton was a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Edmund Randolph proposed a central government with legislative, executive, and judicial branches. William Paterson proposed strengthening the Articles of Confederation. After lengthy discussion, the delegates reached an impasse. Hamilton proposed a government consisting of a Senate and a Monarch with life tenure. He argued that, with lifetime authority, Senators and Monarch would not become corrupt or oppressive. Delegates were astonished, because Hamilton’s proposal seemed too much like the English system of a King and Parliament that they had defeated to obtain freedom.

Hamilton left the convention, believing it would be a failure, and the Continental Congress would persist.

Instead, delegates agreed on a modified version of Randolph’s plan which included a President elected for four years, a bicameral Congress with two houses (Representatives elected for two-year terms and Senators for six-year terms), and a Federal Judiciary with lifetime appointments. Hamilton believed Randolph’s plan was flawed but favored ratification because the alternative was a weak government under the Articles of Confederation. He worked hard to get New York to ratify the Constitution and wrote pamphlets arguing for acceptance of the new Constitution.

The Federalist Papers

Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay jointly wrote the The Federalist Papers to convince Americans that the states should ratify the Constitution. Hamilton wrote fiftyone of The Federalist Papers. Madison penned twenty-nine, and Jay drafted five. Hamilton argued that the choice facing the nation was between a weak coalition of states that could not govern or defend themselves, and a strong central government that would allow the United States to maintain its independence and prosper economically. Hamilton stressed that a strong central government would be good for the economy and give voters equal representation. He highlighted many problems associated with a weak Congress and urged his friends in New York to ratify the new Constitution.

The Federalist Papers explained the rights and duties of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government to a skeptical public. Hamilton argued that judicial review of congressional legislation (the power of the Supreme Court to declare legislation passed by Congress unconstitutional) would safeguard American freedoms. The Federalist Papers were published during a heated political campaign to ratify the Constitution and were read by many Americans.5 They supported ratification of the Constitution, exerted a strong influence on early political thinking, and still guide modern political philosophy. The states ratified the Constitution and George Washington became America’s first President. One of Washington’s first appointments went to Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury.

Treasury Secretary

President Washington nominated Hamilton as Treasury Secretary on September 11, 1789,6 because Hamilton had extensive

experience in banking and finance from managing a Wall Street trading house and handling the finances of Washington’s army during the Revolutionary War. He had written an essay about the need for a National Bank, had experience as a tax receiver (collector) for the State of New York, and helped found the Bank of New York. Hamilton was an enlightened choice for the first Treasury Secretary because he understood finance and had clear ideas about how to handle the national debt. Initially, he sought to place tariffs on imported goods and establish a revenue service to collect taxes to fund the federal government.

Hamilton established a custom service to operate in American ports and collect duties on cargo entering the United States. Hamilton knew ship captains would attempt to avoid paying custom duties, so he upgraded lighthouses on the East Coast and staffed them with customs agents to monitor ship traffic. He also authorized the building of guard boats to enforce tariff duties, effectively founding the United States Coast Guard. Once Hamilton developed a revenue stream to pay for the federal government, he worked to pay off the national war debt. He outlined his proposal for dealing with the national debt in a paper titled The Report on Public Credit 7 Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state and federal debts accumulated during the American Revolution and issue federal bonds for purchase through the treasury or any bank. His goal was to establish a national bond market where citizens could store their savings in a safe investment that earned interest.

Northern states burdened with huge debts supported Hamilton’s plan. Southern states that had paid their war debts through taxes on the sale of cotton and tobacco opposed the plan. Congress divided on the issue. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson proposed a compromise: they would support passage of the debt statute if the capital of the new Republic was located in the South. Hamilton agreed, and he, Jefferson, and Madison asked Washington to support a bill moving the capital to a special district between Virginia and Maryland called the District of Columbia (now Washington, D.C.), in return for their support of the National Bank and federal bond market. Washington agreed, and the debt statute passed.

After issuing federal bonds and establishing Washington, D.C. as the new national capital, Hamilton set out to charter a federal bank and develop an American currency. He proposed a United States Dollar minted in gold and

silver and devised a system of smaller coins based on the decimal system. The penny, nickel, and dime are examples of Hamilton’s decimal money system. After establishing a rational system of finance for the country, Hamilton resigned from Washington’s cabinet, but continued corresponding with Washington and offering advice when asked.

Washington asked Hamilton to help write his farewell address, and he agreed. They collaborated in telling citizens to consider themselves Americans rather than Virginians or New Yorkers and to guard against foreign interference in American affairs. Hamilton soon became active in the anti-slavery movement, founding the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves, whose goal was to help enslaved persons gain their freedom.8

Hamilton urged New Yorkers to free people they enslaved and outlaw slavery in the state, but nothing happened.

Presidential Politics

Alexander Hamilton and John Adams hated each other. During the presidential campaign of 1800, Adams ran for a second term against Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Hamilton wrote an article attacking Adams. Adams never forgave Hamilton for attacking him during the election, believing the attack was a major factor in his defeat. After the votes were counted, Jefferson and Burr tied for electoral college votes; Adams was a distant third. A tie in the Electoral College meant the House of Representatives would select

the President. Hamilton was a member of the Electoral College from New York, and he hated Burr, so he actively campaigned and voted for Jefferson. After thirty-six ballots, Jefferson was elected President.

Hamilton’s Affair

During the Revolutionary War, Hamilton married Eliza Schuyler, the daughter of Phillip Schuyler, one of the wealthiest men in New York. Schuyler was concerned about Hamilton courting his daughter because he was an illegitimate son and not a member of New York’s “upper class.” Schuyler recognized Hamilton was bright, energetic, and an important figure in the United States government, but he was reluctant to have his daughter marry below her social station. Schuyler finally consented, and the couple married in December 1780. While serving as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton began an affair with Mrs. Maria Reynolds while Hamilton’s wife was in Albany with their children. Maria’s husband was a speculator who lost his fortune during the recession following the war, and he forced his wife into prostitution to earn a living.

Mrs. Reynolds ran her business in the bedroom of their home, and when she learned of Hamilton’s wandering eye, she came calling. She told Hamilton her husband had left her for another woman, and he wanted to believe her story because she was attractive, and he liked available women. He told Mrs. Reynolds he would come to her home later with money. When

he arrived, Mrs. Reynolds physically thanked Hamilton for his generosity. Hamilton and Mrs. Reynolds carried on a torrid affair in Washington, D.C. for several months. Then, Mr. Reynolds showed up at Hamilton’s door asking for a job in the Treasury Department. Hamilton refused and vowed to end the affair, but Mrs. Reynolds said she would tell Eliza about their sexual relationship if he did, so Hamilton continued the affair, hoping to avoid a scandal. Mr. Reynolds threatened Hamilton with exposure, so he gave Mr. Reynolds $1,000 to keep him quiet.

Jefferson learned of the affair and was delighted to damage Hamilton’s reputation by spreading gossip around Washington. Hamilton confessed, believing the scandal would go away if he was truthful. Instead, the matter got worse after Jefferson published a pamphlet claiming Hamilton embezzled money from the United States Treasury, using Mrs. Reynold’s letters as proof. Hamilton denied the embezzlement accusations, saying the money he paid Mr. Reynolds came from his private funds rather than the Treasury. Washington society was shocked that Hamilton would do such a thing to his wife and family.

Hamilton v. Burr

Hamilton’s temper led to a fatal duel with Aaron Burr on July 12, 1804. The backgrounds of these two important Americans triggered the famous duel.9 Hamilton and Burr were both orphaned, graduated from Ivy League schools, and were exceptional students. They studied law with prominent attorneys, opened law offices in New York, fought in the Revolutionary War, and entered New York politics at nearly the same time. Hamilton and Burr became members of the New York legislature. Hamilton was instrumental in passing the Constitution. Burr supported passage of the 12th Amendment changing the process for electing Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Both Hamilton and Burr fought courageously during the Revolution, earning reputations as American patriots. However, Burr believed General Washington did not appreciate his talents and felt slighted by not being promoted or given command of troops, while Hamilton earned promotions, served on Washington’s staff, and commanded a regiment at Yorktown in the battle that ended the war. Hamilton lived modestly, even though his wife inherited a large family fortune, while Burr spent lavishly and was always in debt. Hamilton was a handsome and flamboyant Wall Street lawyer, while Burr was bland and jealous. Burr took any case that came through

his door because he needed money, while Hamilton only represented wealthy clients who had interesting cases. Burr hated Hamilton for many perceived slights.

Hamilton and Burr were on opposite sides of the debate about ratifying the new United States Constitution, which Hamilton won, increasing Burr’s jealousy and resentment. Burr was appointed New York Attorney General (not a very important job), while Hamilton served in Washington’s cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury, another source of Burr’s bitterness. Burr was eventually elected to the United States Senate from the state of New York and felt successful for the first time, but he never stopped hating Hamilton.

During the Presidential election of 1796, Hamilton and Burr clashed over political issues. Hamilton supported Thomas Pinckney, Governor of South Carolina, for President while Burr supported Jefferson. Burr informed John Adams that Hamilton was supporting Pinckney. Adams was furious because he wanted the nomination for himself. Adams never forgave Hamilton, and when Hamilton found out that Burr had turned Adams against him, he became furious with Burr. Bad blood continued to accumulate between the two men.

Burr speculated in real estate, but could not pay for land he bought, so the owner sued him for breach of contract and hired Hamilton as his attorney. Burr was found liable and ordered to pay the contract price for the land or go to jail. He had to sell everything he owned and mortgage his house to avoid debtors’ prison and hated Hamilton even more.

At a private party, Hamilton said Burr was a dangerous man who could not be trusted. A guest at the party published Hamilton’s remarks in a letter to a newspaper. Burr was furious and demanded Hamilton explain his remarks. By this point, Hamilton had been involved in at least six incidents that had almost resulted in a duel, but each time the deadly game was averted by friends who advised the parties to apologize. However, Burr and Hamilton had a long, fractious relationship and bad tempers, so their dispute was difficult to mediate. It soon became clear there was no turning back from a duel. Hamilton decided to fire in the air rather than at Burr. Pendleton, his second, advised him not to proceed because he would die. Historians have speculated that Hamilton was depressed and wanted Burr to kill him, but other experts do not believe that is true.10 However, Hamilton had been depressed and

knew he would probably die. He arranged his affairs, sent letters to Eliza, and drafted his will the day before the duel.

Burr knew if he killed Hamilton, it would ruin his career, but he was determined to go through with the duel anyway because he was angry at Hamilton and felt his honor had been sullied. Burr was an expert shot and practiced his marksmanship before the duel, while Hamilton did nothing to prepare for the deadly meeting. They met on neutral ground in New Jersey because dueling was illegal in New York. The evening before the duel, Pendleton visited Hamilton in hopes of dissuading him from going through with the encounter but was unsuccessful. Pendleton and Hamilton’s personal physician accompanied Hamilton to the duel.

Burr arrived first and Hamilton joined him shortly after. They drew lots to decide who would fire first and where each would stand. Hamilton won and irrationally chose the spot where the sun would be in his eyes, making it more difficult to see Burr, while his opponent had a clear view unimpeded by sunlight—another sign that perhaps Hamilton was depressed and intended to die. Burr and Hamilton stood ten feet apart and assumed

sideways positions to present a smaller target. Burr fired and hit Hamilton in the stomach just above his hip. True to his word, Hamilton fired over Burr’s head. Hamilton died on July 11, 1804, at the age of forty-nine.11

Harry Munsinger has served on the San Antonio Bar Association’s publications committee for many years. During that time, he has been a frequent contributor to the San Antonio Lawyer magazine. Although Harry recently retired from law practice, he continues to be a frequent contributor to this magazine!

ENDNOTES

1Alexander DeConde, Alexander Hamilton, Encyclopedia Brittanica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-HamiltonUnited-States-statesman

2Alexander Hamilton, A Full Vindica tion of the Measures of the Congress, https:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamil ton/01-01-02-0054

3A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, Ameri can History, https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biog raphies/alexander-hamilton/aide-de-campto-washington-(1777-1781).php.

4Shay’s Rebellion, U.S. History, https://www. ushistory.org/Us/15a.asp

5The Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History, Library of Congress, https:// guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

6Appointment as Secretary of the Treasury (11 Sept. 1789), Founders Online, https:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamil ton/01-26-02-0002-0147.

7Alexander Hamilton, First Report on Public Credit, Online Library of Liberty, https://oll. libertyfund.org/pages/1790-hamilton-firstreport-on-public-credit.

8Hamilton and the abolition of slavery in New York, statutes and stories.com (August 27, 2018), https://www.statutesandstories.com/ blog_html/hamilton-and-the-abolition-ofslavery-in-new-york/

9Aaron Burr slays Alexander Hamilton in Duel, History (November 24, 2009), https://www. history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slayshamilton-in-duel.

10Joanne Freeman, Understanding the BurrHamilton Duel, The Gilder Lehrman Insti tute of American History, https://teachinghistorywithhamilton.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/07/Understanding-the-BurrHamilton-Duel-Handout.pdf.

11DeConde, supra note 1.

We don’t just build a plan.

At Frost, we take the time to build relationships with our customers. After all, we think it’s the only way to help them best manage, protect and distribute the assets they’ve worked hard to acquire over a lifetime. Whether your clients need probate or trust administration, real estate or mineral management, special needs trusts or anything in between, we’re here to help.

Visit us at frostbank.com or call (210) 220-5016

Investment management services and trust services are o ered through Frost Wealth Advisors of Frost Bank. Investment and insurance products are not FDIC insured, are not bank guaranteed, and may lose value. Brokerage services o ered through Frost Brokerage Services, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, and investment advisory services o ered through Frost Investment Services, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Both companies are subsidiaries of Frost Bank. Additionally, insurance products are o ered through Frost Insurance. Deposit and loan products are o ered through Frost Bank, Member FDIC.

The Effects of Covid-19 on Access to a Speedy Trial

By Justice Lori Valenzuela

In March 2020, lives across the globe were affected in unimaginable ways when Covid-19 became a household fear and began to spread. People lost their jobs; others buried loved ones; and the settings of our homes changed and served as offices, schools, and daycares. Hospitals were pushed beyond capacity in inconceivable ways, and our mental and physical wellbeings were challenged. As we all experienced firsthand, the courts were not spared the disruption that ensued. Over the past twoand-a-half years, the criminal courts shut down, reopened, and then shut down again. Although judges and court staff worked tirelessly to address immediate needs, jury trials were put on hold, and in the interim, some accused waited helplessly, in and out of custody, while the courts contemplated a safe reopening before inviting jurors back to the courthouse. Despite best efforts to return to “normal” dockets, things have not changed overnight, and there remains a backlog to get a case heard before six or twelve impartial jurors. As a result, motions for speedy trial are frequently urged by defendants, perhaps now more than ever.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 10 of the Texas Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI: Tex. Const. art. I, § 10; State v. Lopez, 631 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The right to a speedy trial attaches once a person becomes an “accused”— that is, once the person has been arrested or charged. Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Each case must be reviewed on its own merits because courts “cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972). A unanimous United States Supreme Court noted in the landmark case of Barker v. Wingo that the right to a speedy trial differs from other constitutionally guaranteed rights because it is often more in the interest

of society and the justice system as a whole than it is in the interest of the accused. Id. at 519-22. The Court held that determinations of whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the circumstances of the case and the reasons for any delays.

Specifically, the Supreme Court listed four factors that courts should consider in addressing speedy-trial claims: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Id. at 530. If the defendant can make a threshold showing that the interval between accusation and trial is “presumptively prejudicial,” then a court must consider and weigh each of the remaining Barker factors. Generally, a delay of eight months to a year, or longer, is presumptively prejudicial and triggers a speedy trial analysis.

Lopez, 631 S.W.3d at 114. However, the delay that triggers analysis for an ordinary street crime will be less than for a serious, complex

conspiracy charge. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. Assuming the length of delay is presumptively prejudicial, the inquiry proceeds to the remaining factors, beginning with the reason for the delay. A deliberate attempt to delay the case will weigh against the State. Delay caused by the defendant or her attorney will weigh against the defendant. This is most often a consideration for the court when a defendant requests a continuance. While overcrowded courts may ultimately weigh against the State and not the defendant, “[d]elay caused by the onset of a pandemic cannot be attributed as fault to the State.” State v. Conatser, 645 S.W.3d 925, 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.). The third factor includes a request. A defendant’s failure to timely request a speedy trial suggests that he does not want one. Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Courts also differentiate between a defendant’s request for speedy trial versus requesting a dismissal of a trial. A speedy-trial

claim weakens if a defendant seeks dismissal, because it shows a desire to have no trial instead of a speedy one. Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 283. Lastly, prejudice must be assessed in light of the interests the speedy trial right was intended to protect, including: oppressive pretrial incarceration, minimizing the anxiety and concern of the defendant, and limiting the possibility that the defense’s case will be impaired. Hopper v. State, 520 S.W.3d 915, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This last interest includes diminishing memories, unavailable witnesses, and loss of exculpatory evidence.

Motions for speedy trial must be in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 27.10. The practitioner must determine the appropriate time to urge the motion taking into consideration an analysis based on the timeline, number of settings, and complexity of the case. A defendant’s failure to seek a speedy trial does not amount to waiver, but “failure to seek a speedy trial makes it difficult for a defendant to prevail.” Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Unlike Bexar County, many outlying counties have courts of general jurisdiction. As backlogged criminal proceedings resume in these counties, a lawyer should anticipate a lengthy delay in civil proceedings.

Courts must engage in a “difficult and sensitive” balancing process between the conduct of the prosecutor and the defense, and courts are tasked with evaluating the merits of each individual case when ruling on a motion for speedy trial. What makes this motion unique is that we have all lived through this ongoing pandemic—even judges who will decide how much weight, if any, to give when the delay and prejudice are attributed to something that none of us could have imagined in February 2020.

Justice Lori I. Valenzuela has been on the Fourth Court of Appeals since 2021. From 2009 to 2021, she presided over the 437th Criminal District Court. Prior to her tenure on the bench, Justice Valenzuela served as a Bexar County Assistant District Attorney, established a law practice concentrating in criminal defense, and worked as a county magistrate. Justice Valenzuela is an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Justice Valenzuela received her Bachelor of Arts in Government from the University of Texas at Austin and her Juris Doctor degree from St. Mary’s University School of Law.

RISK-TAKING CAN BE FUN...

…BUT NOT WHEN IT’S A MALPRACTICE CLAIM.

Personal Injury Claim*

• Lawyer sued for allowing a default judgment taken against client

• Damages of up to $4,000,000 sought ($200,000 policy limit)

• TLIE settled case for $300,000

INSURED BY TLIE

Deductible = $1,000

Amount over policy limit = $109,000

Total out-of-pocket = $110,000

IF NOT INSURED

Defense costs $10,000 Settlement + $300,000

Total out-of-pocket = $310,000

* Based on actual claim handled by TLIE.

FIND OUT MORE: TLIE.ORG or (512) 480-9074

- efficiently deciphers healthcare language and identifies important missing elements which saves you time

- has the expertise to thoroughly review medical records, provide summaries and perform research at the fraction of the cost of a MD

- can evaluate all of the evidence to form an opinion as to causation and damages, which can help develop the overall case theory and strategy

Call in the Expert. It’s what we do!

• Locating expert witnesses

• And much more

Western District of Texas Court Summaries

By Soledad Valenciano, Melanie Fry, and Jeffrie Lewis

If you are aware of a Western District of Texas order that you believe would be of interest to the local bar and should be summarized in this column, please contact Soledad Valenciano (svalenciano@svtxlaw.com, 210-787-4654) or Melanie Fry (mfry@dykema.com, 210-554-5500) with the style and cause number of the case, and the entry date and docket number of the order.

Insurance Coverage; Erie Guess

Go Green Botanicals, Inc. v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., SA-22-CV-00373-ESC (Chestney, E., Aug. 9, 2022)

The court granted an insurance company’s motion to dismiss without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, finding such amendment futile under Fifth Circuit precedent. The plaintiff insured sought coverage for business income loss due to COVID-19 and related governmental orders. Recently, the Fifth Circuit conducted an Erie guess on similar “business income” and “civil authority” insurance provisions, finding both required a direct physical loss of, or damage to, property, where “physical” meant “tangible,” and “loss” meant “a state of being lost or destroyed, ruin or destruction.” The loss of use of property or the temporary restriction on the use of property are insufficient. District courts within the Fifth Circuit and subsequent panels of the Fifth Circuit are bound by the Fifth Circuit’s Erie predictions absent subsequent state-court decisions establishing that the Fifth Circuit was incorrect. The court additionally pointed to several policy exclusions related to loss of business income, viruses, and acts or decisions, finding those exclusions also acted to bar coverage for loss of business income. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s bad faith claims, finding no bad faith exists when an insurance company promptly denies a claim that is not covered.

Experts; Insurance: TPPCA

Atkinson v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., SA-21CV-00723-XR (Rodriguez, X., Aug. 24, 2022)

The court granted an insurance company’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s expert and motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The plaintiff insured’s claims stemmed from alleged roof damage said to have been caused by a hailstorm. Although there was an initial finding of no damage, the insured persisted, and eventually the insurance company conducted a reinspection and paid insured $14,058.12. The insured hired an attorney and filed a demand, so the insurance company invoked the appraisal process, resulting in an additional $10,182.87 payment to the insured, plus interest owed under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA). The insured sued and hired an expert whom the insurance company moved to strike. The court struck the expert’s testimony related to causation and repair because he did not disclose in his report that he would be opining on such matters and because the plaintiff did not show that such omission was substantially justified or harmless. The court struck the expert’s testimony related to claims handling because the testimony did not meet Rule 702 and Daubert standards, in that the expert did not describe the methodologies he applied or how he applied them to the facts of the case. Because the insurance company paid

the appraisal award, as a matter of law it did not breach the policy. The plaintiff did not provide evidence of entitlement-to-benefits or the independent injury rule to support her extracontractual claims under the Texas Insurance Code, the DTPA, or fraud. The plaintiff could not recover attorneys’ fees under the TPPCA because the insurance company paid the full amount of policy benefits and the maximum amount of interest allowed under the TPPCA, making any possible judgment “zero dollars.”

Personal Jurisdiction; Minimum

Contacts; Transfer

Turner v. Harvard MedTech of Nev., LLC, No. 1:22-CV-83-DAE (Ezra, D., Aug. 8, 2022).

A citizen of Texas filed suit involving allegations of breach of an oral employment agreement and declaratory judgment. The defendants, Harvard MedTech of Nevada, LLC (“HMT”), a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Nevada, and Kuldarshan S. Padda (“Padda”), an individual citizen of Nevada, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue or, in the alternative, for transfer to the District of Nevada. The plaintiff responded that the court had specific and general jurisdiction over the defendants given that the defendants’ contacts with the state of Texas produced the contract at issue and were continuous and systematic.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to demonstrate personal or general jurisdiction. The court held the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants took any deliberate action in Texas concerning the purported oral agreement forming the basis of the lawsuit, and even if the plaintiff had satisfied this initial burden, the court was not convinced that exercising personal jurisdiction in this matter was satisfactory under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. As to Padda, the court held that contracting with a Texas resident, or accepting the transfer of money to a Texas bank (e.g., the wage and other payments made by Padda or HMT to the plaintiff) was not enough to establish that a defendant has sufficient contacts with Texas. Further, there were no allegations of any deliberate contact by Padda directed at Texas (as opposed to the plaintiff himself), and the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct by Padda occurred while Padda was in Nevada, not Texas. As to HMT, the court held the plaintiff could not rely on any alleged contract negotiations or phone calls to subject HMT to jurisdiction, and the plaintiff had not otherwise pled any other contacts sufficient to establish that HMT is subject to general or specific jurisdiction in Texas. The court—noting it may transfer a case for lack of personal jurisdiction, and that it was undisputed that both defendants were domiciled in, or subject to jurisdiction in, the District of Nevada—found the interests of justice favored transfer rather than dismissal and transferred the matter to the District of Nevada for further proceedings.

Digital Millenium Copyright Act; Independent Injury Rule

Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. AMH Creekside Dev., LLC, No. SA-21-CV-01158XR, (Rodriguez, J., Sept. 16, 2022)

Plaintiff Kipp Flores Architects, LLC (“KFA”) asserted violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), direct and contributory copyright infringement, conversion, and specific performance against defendants who had licensed KFA’s copyrighted architectural works. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Relating to the DMCA claim, the plaintiff alleged files containing copies of its works were sent to the defendants with the plaintiff’s copyright management information (“CMI”) on them, and the defendants thereafter created

floorplans and 3-D renderings based on those files but did not include the CMI. The court noted to establish liability under the section of the DMCA at issue, the CMI must have been “removed” from the copyright owner’s work. Thus, to establish a claim, the plaintiff must allege CMI was once present on the work and later taken away. In this case, CMI was not taken away, but rather the plaintiff alleged the defendants generated nonidentical renditions based on its works. The nonidentical renditions produced by the defendants never included CMI in the first place and, therefore, CMI was not “removed” from that work. Even where the underlying works were similar, without allegations that defendants reproduced the identical copyrighted works or cropped or deleted CMI, plaintiff failed to state a claim under the DMCA.

The defendants also moved to dismiss KFA’s conversion claim, which arose from the defendants’ alleged refusal to return the copyrighted architectural works prepared by KFA, asserting the claim was barred by the independent injury rule as it sounded only in contract. KFA claimed the defendants were obligated by the terms of the license agreement between the parties to return to KFA all copies of the plans, drawings, and other data prepared by KFA under the agreement. The court held that KFA’s conversion claim,

therefore, sought to vindicate its contractual right under the license agreement. Without the contract, there was no right to the physical possession of the tangible embodiments of the copyrighted work. Therefore, the court concluded the conversion claim was barred by the independent injury rule as there was no tort independent of the contract.

Soledad Valenciano practices commercial and real estate litigation with Spivey Valenciano, PLLC. Melanie Fry practices commercial litigation and appellate law with Dykema Gossett PLLC. Jeffrie B. Lewis is Assistant General Counsel with Zachry Group.

Broadway

Covenant

Davis

Donald

Frost

Gallant

Kelmar

Manitzas

Pronto

Joseph CASSEB

Don PHILBIN

Wade SHELTON Thomas SMITH Hon. John SPECIA, Jr. Hon. Phylis SPEEDLIN

Dan POZZA

John BOYCE

Roberto RIOS

Roger BRESNAHAN

Gary JAVORE

Comprehensive Wealth Management Solutions

At Broadway Bank we understand the key to building a lasting legacy requires a comprehensive approach to your financial planning. Our team will take the time to learn about your unique circumstances and identify the values most important to you and your family. As a client, you will have a dedicated team of impeccably credentialed professionals to provide thoughtful and custom-tailored advice and guidance. Our team’s expertise goes beyond trust administration and investment management.

•