So, Republican Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht obtains a discount on his legal fees from Chip Babcock of Jackson & Walker for his successful defense of Hecht last year in the dispute with the Commission on Judicial Conduct over his endorsement of then U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. That gets Justice Hecht an ethics complaint and a possible criminal investigation by the Travis County District Attorney’s office.
Meanwhile, Democrat Bill White, the Mayor of Houston who is almost certainly going to seek a statewide office in a year or two, leans on local law firms to provide free or heavily discounted legal work for the City of Houston, most of which helps Mayor White’s political aspirations. That gets Mayor White a glowing article (see Anne Linehan’s report here) in the Houston Chronicle.
What am I missing here?
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
naivety?
Well, there’s the fact that Hecht asked the Legislature to pay his legal bills at the same time as he was soliciting contributions from attorneys to pay them as well. See
http://74.205.117.138/blogs/burkablog/2007/03/hecht-no_20.php
That appears to be the origin of his current legal woes.
Charles, is Hecht’s conduct meaningfully different than Mayor White solicitation of political contributions from law firms who do business with the city, and then doling out the pro bono business on matters that he will use to tout his political career?
My point is that these types of conflicts are not unusual in the political world. Although I prefer that our judges be appointed so that they did not have to deal with such conflicts, we shouldn’t hold them to different standards than other elected officials when we impose the conflicts of the political world on them.