Warning: Texas law firm solicits registrants in Florida
Scam Directed at Registered Sex Offenders
We have received several emails from members advising us that they have received a letter from a law firm in Texas, Estes-Hightower, PLLC stating they “received their contact information” from the state’s Public Safety Sex Offender Registry” and to contact them to see whether they are eligible for “early removal from the Sex Offender Registry”.
Be VERY cautious about these opportunists who market service to registrants.
***UPDATE – THIS FIRM IS SOLICITING A $5000 RETAINER FROM REGISTRANTS, A COPY OF THE “RETAINER AGREEMENT” WAS SHARED WITH US, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT OFFER ANY SCOPE OF LEGAL SERVICES AND IS GOVERNED BY TEXAS LAW.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just received a letter from the Estes-Hightower law firm today and looked up what FAC had to say about it. Are there any new developments regarding the authenticity of this firm’s advertisement? How do we know they are not sincerely seeking to help registrants? My emotions are hinging on this being true. Please help. Thank you.
Our suggestion is to ignore.
John Does #1-7 v. Abbott and McCraw, case no. 3:18-cv-629 (N. D. Tex. (Dallas Div.) March 16, 2018).
Thanks for the case number but I not finding that anywhere?
Go to pacermonitor.com//public/cases/23966585/Does_17_v_Abbott_at_al, or just run Does 1-7 v. Abbott in Google search. the pacermonitor site will come up. You would need Pacer access to see the details, but the lawsuit has been filed. FAC is simply jealous of the competition.
Thank you, A Friend – I will post this to the main page.
A Friend?
What Competition?
FAC is a non-profit and not involved in this movement to line their pockets! Can you say the same?
All Florida registrants who have received a letter: Please contact the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas. You can do this online at this link:
http://cdc.texasbar.com/cdc/Home/Index
Once on this page, click the “Online Grievance Form” on the right side of the page (or scroll down your device, though I would use a full website portal if possible). I’m not sure if they allow the ability to send attachments, but if they do, take a snapshot of the letter itself and include it, along with all addressing information on the sending envelope itself.
I copied and pasted, with the author’s permission, in the SOSEN forum the following post:
__________
For the most part, Texas does NOT look favorably on such actions. For instance,
https://www.legalethicstexas.com/Ethics-Resources/Rules/Texas-Disciplinary-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/VII–INFORMATION-ABOUT-LEGAL-SERVICES/7-03-Prohibited-Solicitations-Payments
It starts like this… “A lawyer shall not by in-person contact, or by regulated telephone or other electronic contact…”
This is pretty cut-and-dried. HOWEVER….
The actual law is murky. Let’s first go to the actual ordinance that seemingly prohibits such contact:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/StatutesByDate.aspx?code=PE&level=SE&value=38.12&date=5/28/2015
First part of ordinance:
*****
Penal Code 38.12 on 5/28/2015
Sec. 38.12. BARRATRY AND SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit the person:
(1) knowingly institutes a suit or claim that the person has not been authorized to pursue;
(2) solicits employment, either in person or by telephone, for himself or for another;
(3) pays, gives, or advances or offers to pay, give, or advance to a prospective client money or anything of value to obtain employment as a professional from the prospective client;
(4) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a person money or anything of value to solicit employment;
(5) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a family member of a prospective client money or anything of value to solicit employment; or
(6) accepts or agrees to accept money or anything of value to solicit employment.
*****
Again, seems cut and dried. However, the thorn in the issue is a Supreme Court ruling that as a result, criminal defense attorneys who send direct mail to prospective clients who are arrestees or persons issued a summons, including those persons’ family members, no longer need to worry about violating the criminal barratry statute as long as their written communications comply with Rules 7.05. The same is true of the …civil barratry statute which (was) also amended and are discussed in the next section. However, other written communications sent by lawyers, such as personal injury solicitation, need to comply with the proper waiting period.
And therein lies the rub: Are individuals on a sex offender registry considered in the same group as “arrestee” or “person issued a summons?” I myself say NO, because the presence of the registry is CIVIL, and therefore anyone on the registry is NOT under jurisdiction of the court, or they have been PROPERLY adjudicated and are past the point of decision.
In fact, the service being offered is not related to the offense, and the Supreme Court did not SPECIFICALLY carve out a “sex offender registrant is fair game for solicitation” ruling, so my own interpretation is that what the legal firm is not only unethical, but ILLEGAL as well.
To conclude, it appears that the legal firm is doing this “ilegally” under their own interpretation . The only time that the Supreme Court decision may allow a firm to contact the registrant is, in fact, if the registrant has been CHARGED for a crime (any registration violation will do). If the registrant has NOT been charged for a crime then the registrant is like any other free, law-abiding citizen, and therefore subject to protection from predatory law firm solicitation.
To file a complaint with the Florida Bar you can go to: https://www.floridabar.org/public/acap/assistance/
Thank you for that Info I will be doung this new to report this shame on them !!! Thank you FAC also
First of all, I’m from Texas and an active member of Texas Voices led by our tireless leader with seemingly superhuman stamina Mary Sue Molnar. While I have not personally met Richard Gladden, I’m well aware of his reputation as an attorney here in Texas, he is held in VERY high regard. Mr Gladden has joined with Texas Voices on several lawsuits that deal with the treatment of those on the registry in our state.
I believe that if Mr. Gladden saw some red flags in his conversations with Ms. Estes-Hightower, I would most definitely defer to his judgement on this matter. This is my personal decision and may, or may not, coincide with the official views of Texas Voices – just wanted to interject that here.
Concerning the law suit that Ms. Estes-Hightower has been collecting retainers for in the sum of $5000 per, all of us here in Texas — whether we have paid a retainer or not — have been anxiously awaiting the filing of this lawsuit that will supposedly challenge the ex post facto application of SORNA here is Texas, similar to the Doe vs Snyder decision that was issued by the Sixth Circuit in Michigan. We’ve been waiting for a while, as Mr. Gladden has mentioned.
Combined, the lack of the ex post facto litigation being filed, and the solicitation of those on the registry concerning deregistration, indicates to me that perhaps the main thing that Ms. Estes-Hightower is interested is money. If this is not the case them surely she would welcome the advice of a veteran attorney such as Mr. Gladden. Instead, evidently, when confronted with questions from someone quite familiar with the law, what does she do? She hangs up on him, now that’s very telling — at least to me it is.
It’s past time to challenge these attempts to defraud us, we have little support from our government and now it seems that anyone and everyone can approach us spouting out lies and playing on our emotions. Who of us doesn’t want to be removed from the registry? The sad thing is that making the attempt, and spending not only attorney fees but evaluations from therapist’s as well ( which, by the way, here in Texas can be around $2000 ) very few actually are removed. It seems that many view us as easy targets and this really pisses me off, intensely.
If, indeed, Ms. Estes-Hightower did violate a federal law I feel like this should be investigated to the fullest extent.
Again, this is just my own personal three cents worth on this matter.
We had an attorney speak with Ms. Estes-Hightower and she concurred with Mr. Gladden.
Our Texas organization (Texas Voices) has worked closely with Richard Gladden for many years now. We have always found him to be honest, trustworthy, experienced in his field, and passionate about the cases he chooses to pursue and the people he represents. For our advocacy work here in Texas, Richard has been a true blessing.
My son had his so called interview on the phone today wbat a joke !! Right away they looking for down payment today they want $5,000 retainer fees They want monthly payments of $150.00 a month. What’s scary is he asked him questions about how many people in Florida they have contacted about 100 people in the Orlando area interested we don’t know how true that is!! I feel sorry for those who get sucked into their schemes. Watch out people. The class action lawsuit will be going on soon in Texas he says. But florida he was t sure yet. Hummm i say SCAM !!
You know I cannot even say how distressing this all is. I trust FAC 100%. I know they are on top of this….however, it is so distressing that people try to exploit the people that are in a category that excludes them from society, they cannot do things in life that all others do, they cannot just go on vacation, or choose a place to live, or go to their children’s sports games, the list goes on and on….and then add to it people that want to exploit their predicament for the gain of the almighty dollar….it is heartbreaking. Please do not let your guard down…