March
14th 2016, Ty Clevenger, a Texas Attorney, posted an article about his
grievances toward Attorney General Ken Paxton. Clevenger attempts to inform his
readers about the “special protections” Paxton benefited from being a Texas
Official. He targets the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) due to
their dismissal of complaints filed against Ken Paxton.
Clevenger
continues, declaring his grievances against Paxton “had far less to do with Mr.
Paxton than the state bar itself.” On numerous occasions, Clevenger has observed
several “politically-connected” lawyers, that have committed crimes be
protected by the state bar.
The complaint filed by Clevenger was
dismissed because the criminal case was still pending. To back up his argument,
he refers to a Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure, stating there is nothing
that prevents OCDC from prosecuting an attorney with a pending charge. This
wasn’t the first time Paxton received “special protection.”
A previous grievance filed by Erica
Gammill against Paxton had also been rejected “because that grievance
supposedly failed to state a disciplinary violation.” Mind you, Paxton had
already admitted to being guilty of the charges against him.
After being found guilty, Clevenger
re-filed Mrs. Gammill’s grievance along with Paxton’s indictment. Once again,
the complaint was rejected by OCDC because the case was still pending.
Basically, if a grievance is filed before an indictment, it is dismissed on the
ground of failing to state a violation. If you file after an indictment, it is
dismissed because the case is ongoing.
Clevenger concludes saying the Texas
state bar needed to be “gutted and reorganized from top to bottom.” He makes
one last reference to another rejected grievance by the OCDC for no apparent reason.
