## Facts

- A Texas attorney was subject to an agreed disciplinary judgment: a 90-day suspension beginning November 1, 1988, plus a three-year suspension that was probated for three years beginning January 31, 1989.
- The probation terms barred him from committing professional misconduct and from accepting new employment until November 1, 1988; he could refer potential clients to other lawyers.
- After the July 6, 1988 Piper Alpha offshore platform disaster, the attorney and an assistant contacted Scottish solicitors to obtain potential cases and discussed referring matters to a Houston lawyer.
- In Scotland, the assistant represented that he worked with “some of the best trial lawyers in Houston” and a “group of internationally renowned trial lawyers in the United States,” without identifying the lawyers involved.
- A public-relations consultant issued a press release naming the attorney as lead counsel and describing unnamed team members as “internationally-renowned,” while omitting the attorney’s disciplinary limitations.
- The assistant sent a form letter to victims and families implying the group was bringing suits in the United States and inviting coordination through victims’ solicitors; an advertisement was also placed.
- The communications did not disclose that the attorney was prohibited from accepting new clients until November 1, 1988, would be suspended beginning that date, and lacked a disclaimer regarding board certification.
- The State Bar moved to revoke probation, alleging misleading solicitation/advertising and acceptance of new employment during the prohibited period.
- After a bench trial, the court found the attorney violated disciplinary rules on false or misleading communications and accepted a new client during the prohibited period, revoked probation, and imposed a three-year suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the attorney made or caused false or misleading communications about legal services in violation of disciplinary rules and probation conditions.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the attorney accepted “new employment” before November 1, 1988, contrary to an express probation term.
3. Whether alleged procedural and evidentiary errors in the revocation proceeding required reversal.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment revoking probation and imposing a three-year suspension.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the press release, letters, and advertising were false or misleading, including through material omissions and exaggerated claims.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the attorney accepted new employment during the period he was prohibited from doing so.
- The asserted procedural and evidentiary complaints did not show reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyer communications about legal services may violate disciplinary rules when they are materially misleading, including by exaggerated self-praise, vague claims about a “team,” implications of existing representation, or omission of facts necessary to prevent deception.
- Omitting a lawyer’s disciplinary status or inability to accept new matters can render solicitation or advertising misleading.
- An agreed disciplinary probation order is enforceable according to its terms; violation of any condition may support revocation and imposition of the previously suspended sanction.
- Appellate review in disciplinary probation revocation gives substantial deference to the trial court’s fact findings when supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld revocation of a lawyer’s disciplinary probation and a three-year suspension based on sufficient evidence that his Piper Alpha-related outreach and publicity were misleading and that he accepted new employment despite an express probationary prohibition, rejecting additional procedural challenges.


Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 786 S.W.2d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990)