P.O. Box 200842
Austin, Texas 78720
(512) 619-8639
Fax (512) 372-1645

Oprima aquí para información en Español "Seguro que hablamos Español” [email protected]

Practice Areas

Our office enjoys handling a wide variety of legal matters including:

  • Commercial / Business litigation (including breach of contract).
  • Mediation services.
  • Complex multi-party litigation.
  • Business and Real Estate Disputes.
  • Construction litigation.
  • Landlord / Tenant disputes.
  • Business torts including fraud and misrepresentation.
  • Personal Injury Litigation.
  • Appellate brief writing and appellate argument.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution.
  • Medical Malpractice (prosecution and defense).
  • Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
  • Negligence.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Administrative Law (including representing health care professionals before boards and the State Office of Administrative Hearings “SOAH”).
  • Criminal law defense (federal court).
  • Ad valorem (property) tax disputes.
  • Insurance / Disability disputes and litigation.
  • Real estate title examination and related issues.
  • Real estate contracts and leases.
  • Foreclosures.
  • Will preparation.
  • Creditor's rights.

School district employee immunity

The Texas Education Code states in relevant part that “a professional employee of a school district is not personally liable for any act that is incident to or within the scope of duties of the employee’s position of employment and that involves the exercise of judgment or discretion on the part of the employee, except in circumstances in which a professional employee uses excessive force in the discipline of students or negligence resulting in bodily injury to students.   In the May 20, 2010 opinion in Robinson v. Brannon, Mr. Robinson a school district employee alleged among other things that two other school district employees Mr. Brannon and Ms. Freeman had participated in harassing phone calls, text messages and defamatory e-mail and the court stated that Mr. Brannon and Ms. Freeman were not entitled to professional immunity under the statute, as such actions were not within the scope of their employment.

Background image courtesy of Akumar