Here’s an analysis of Lane v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Supreme Court of Texas, decided June 6, 2025. I’ll break down the facts, the legal question, what the majority held, why, and the main points of the dissent. You can also read the text of the opinion by clicking here. https://www.girardslaw.com/library/Lane-v-CLD-w-dissent.pdf

Background

Nejla Lane is an attorney licensed in Texas, Illinois, and Michigan. In 2017, while handling a heated Illinois divorce, Lane sent three strongly worded emails to a federal magistrate judge’s chambers, criticizing the judge’s rulings and claiming bias. These emails were deemed “improper” by the judge, who then reported Lane for misconduct after the case ended.

  • The Northern District of Illinois (federal court) suspended Lane for six months in 2018.
  • The Illinois Supreme Court followed with a six-month suspension and six months of probation in 2023.
  • Lane self-reported her discipline to the Texas State Bar, as required by rule.

In response, the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CLD) sought to impose “reciprocal discipline” (mirroring the other states’ punishment) for Lane’s conduct—in 2023, almost six years after the emails were sent.

Key Legal Question

Does Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.06(A)—which says attorneys can’t be disciplined for misconduct that occurred more than four years before a complaint is received—apply to reciprocal discipline cases (where Texas acts because another jurisdiction already imposed discipline)?

If it does, then Lane can’t be disciplined in Texas for the 2017 emails, because more than four years had passed by the time Texas acted.

The Majority’s Holding (Justice Huddle’s Opinion)

  • Rule 17.06(A) Applies: The Supreme Court of Texas held that the four-year limitation does apply to reciprocal discipline cases. The rule is broad, and only lists a few specific exceptions (none of which are for reciprocal discipline).
  • Lane’s Misconduct Was Time-Barred: Lane’s emails (the misconduct) happened in 2017. Texas didn’t act until 2023, well beyond the four-year window.
  • No Waiver: Lane didn’t “waive” the limitations defense by failing to raise it at the first opportunity, because the rules for reciprocal discipline don’t require attorneys to plead such defenses up front.
  • Result: Texas cannot discipline Lane for the 2017 emails—her suspension is reversed, and the disciplinary case is dismissed.

Key Reasoning

  • The majority said the text of the rules shows the four-year time bar is the default for all cases except a few explicit exceptions (compulsory discipline for criminal acts, certain prosecutor misconduct, and cases involving fraud/concealment).
  • Reciprocal discipline (discipline based on what another state did) is not one of those exceptions.
  • The clock starts running from when the misconduct happened, not when the other state imposed discipline.
  • Letting Texas discipline lawyers indefinitely for old misconduct would be unfair and contrary to the plain language of the rule.

The Dissent (Justice Boyd, joined by Justice Busby)

  • Boyd argued that the specific rule for reciprocal discipline (Rule 9.04) only lists a handful of defenses a lawyer can raise, and limitations isn’t one of them.
  • Because Lane didn’t plead any of those listed defenses, he says she should not be able to escape discipline by claiming limitations under Rule 17.06(A).
  • The dissent warns that the majority is rewriting the rules and confusing the normal process of raising (and waiving) defenses like statutes of limitations.

In Short

  • Majority: Texas can’t discipline Lane now because her misconduct happened too long ago; the four-year limitation applies even in reciprocal discipline cases.
  • Dissent: Lane should have raised her limitations defense earlier, and the rule doesn’t allow for it in reciprocal discipline cases anyway.

Takeaways

  • This case limits how and when Texas can impose discipline on attorneys where the original misconduct happened long ago, even if another state disciplined the attorney more recently.
  • It underscores the importance of clear rules and timelines in attorney discipline cases—lawyers in Texas are now protected by a strict four-year limitation, unless one of a few exceptions applies.
  • The case also highlights a debate on technical legal procedure versus fairness and the plain text of the rules.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

Post A Comment