Michael A. Pohl, et al. v. Mark Kentrell Cheatham, Sr., et al., 23-0045, May 09, 2025.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Government Code § 82.0651(a)’s private right of action to void legal-services contracts procured through barratry does not reach claims brought by out-of-state clients where the core solicitation and barratry conduct occurred outside Texas. The Court reversed the court of appeals as to those statutory claims but affirmed denial of summary judgment on plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this dispute arises from personal-injury representation, the Court’s limitation on extraterritorial application of § 82.0651(a) has direct implications for family-law litigation. Family-law practitioners who represent nonresident clients, accept referrals from out-of-state solicitors, or work with third-party lead generators must reassess exposure to statutory anti-barratry challenges premised on out-of-state solicitation. Conversely, clients who claim improper procurement of a retainer by out-of-state solicitation may need to rely on nonstatutory causes of action—such as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or malpractice—if the solicitatory conduct occurred outside Texas.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Two Texas-licensed attorneys (Pohl and Ammons) represented plaintiffs in personal-injury suits filed and prosecuted outside Texas after third parties allegedly solicited the clients in Louisiana and Arkansas and encouraged retention of the Texas lawyers. The Cheatham family alleges that representatives of Helping Hands Group (and a financing company tied to one lawyer’s wife) visited the family in Louisiana, touted the attorneys’ services, and offered payments or other inducements contingent on hiring the Texas lawyers. The clients signed contingency agreements in Louisiana; later settlements were disbursed and the clients sued in Texas, asserting a private right to void the fee agreements under Texas Gov’t Code § 82.0651(a) and seeking fees and penalties under § 82.0651(b). The trial court dismissed; the court of appeals reversed as to the § 82.0651 claims; the Supreme Court reviewed whether that statute applies extraterritorially.
Issues Decided
The Supreme Court resolved whether Texas Government Code § 82.0651(a) applies to claims brought by nonresident clients where the solicitation and alleged barratry that procured the legal-services contract occurred outside Texas. The Court also addressed whether summary judgment was proper on nonstatutory claims—specifically breach of fiduciary duty.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the statutory text of Texas Government Code § 82.0651 (establishing a private right to void contracts procured by barratry and remedies in § 82.0651(b)), and the canon that Texas statutes are presumed not to operate extraterritorially unless the Legislature clearly indicates otherwise. The opinion treats the statute’s “focus” (the solicitation/procurement element) as the operative contact for applying the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court also considered procedural and equitable interplay with parallel proceedings (the Louisiana concursus) insofar as the record reflected competing fora for settlement funds, but it ultimately rested the decision on the extraterritoriality analysis. The Court left intact ordinary common-law and equitable causes of action that have sufficient Texas contacts.
Application
In a fact-driven narrative, the Court first identified the “core conduct” targeted by § 82.0651(a): solicitation of legal-services contracts through impermissible barratry. Applying the presumption that Texas law does not apply extraterritorially, the Court examined where that core conduct occurred. Because the alleged solicitation and procurement took place in Louisiana and Arkansas, and the clients are nonresidents, the Court concluded the Legislature did not clearly intend § 82.0651(a) to reach those out-of-state acts. The court of appeals’ contrary conclusion—that the statute applied because “at least part” of the lawyers’ conduct occurred in Texas—was rejected. The Supreme Court found the statutory private-right remedy unavailable to the nonresident plaintiffs on the asserted theory but recognized that other causes grounded in fiduciary duty arising from the lawyer-client relationship and Texas contacts were not foreclosed; the Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of summary judgment on those common-law claims and remanded for further proceedings as to them.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Texas Government Code § 82.0651(a) does not apply to claims by nonresident clients where the solicitation constituting barratry occurred outside Texas; the statute does not reach extraterritorial conduct absent clear legislative intent. As a result, the Court reversed the court of appeals insofar as it allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on § 82.0651(a) claims and rendered judgment that those plaintiffs take nothing on those statutory claims. Separately, the Court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims; those common-law claims may proceed and were remanded to the trial court.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, this decision recalibrates risk assessment when a client challenges a retainer or fee agreement on statutory barratry grounds. If the alleged solicitation or procurement occurred outside Texas, the client’s remedy under § 82.0651(a) is likely unavailable. Practitioners should therefore (1) document the locus of solicitation carefully, (2) preserve and develop alternative causes of action tied to Texas contacts (breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, malpractice, or unconscionability), and (3) use engagement letters, fee disclosures, and forum/choice-of-law provisions to reduce future statutory exposure. Additionally, when defending fee disputes arising from cross-border solicitations or third-party lead generators, emphasize the extraterritoriality bar early in jurisdictional and dispositive briefing while defending the attorney-client relationship on fiduciary and procedural grounds.
Checklists
Determine Jurisdictional Nexus
- Collect and preserve evidence identifying where solicitation occurred (dates, locations, eyewitness affidavits).
- Collect communications showing where the client reached out or where the lawyer initiated contact (phone records, emails with IP geolocation, text metadata).
- Confirm client residence and where the retainer was signed and executed.
Preserve and Plead Alternative Claims
- Plead breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, malpractice, and unconscionability with factual specificity tied to Texas contacts.
- Preserve evidence of Texas-based communications, work performed in Texas, fees received in Texas, or other Texas-centric acts supporting common-law claims.
- Avoid relying solely on statutory causes that may be subject to the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Intake and Marketing Controls
- Implement written policies prohibiting or strictly governing third-party in-person solicitation outside Texas (and keep documentation when solicitations are initiated in Texas).
- Require disclosure and written acknowledgement when third-party referral fees or incentives are involved; document sources of any payments to intermediaries.
- Maintain contemporaneous intake logs showing where client meetings or solicitations occurred.
Contract Drafting and Forum Planning
- Use explicit choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses in retainer agreements where appropriate and enforceable in family-law contexts.
- Include clear descriptions of services, jurisdictions of intended litigation, and client acknowledgements of solicitation source.
- Consider arbitration clauses for fee disputes where consistent with ethical and statutory constraints.
Litigation and Defensive Strategy
- Move early on extraterritoriality grounds when solicitation occurred outside Texas; support with affidavits and jurisdictional evidence.
- If the statutory remedy is unavailable, focus on defeating summary judgment on fiduciary or malpractice claims by emphasizing Texas work product and client relationships created/maintained in Texas.
- Coordinate with co-counsel in other jurisdictions to manage parallel proceedings (e.g., concursus, interpleader, or fee proceedings).
Citation
Michael A. Pohl, et al. v. Mark Kentrell Cheatham, Sr., et al., No. 23-0045, Supreme Court of Texas, May 9, 2025.
Full Opinion
Full opinion (Supreme Court of Texas, May 9, 2025)
Share this content: