NO. 03-1069

 COMPANION TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 03-1023, 03-1049, 
03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117, 03-1139








 Re:  Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court 
Harris County , Texas


TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ______________________________________________________________________

                                                                        Filed by: John WorldPeace, Relator  

                                                                        John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Suite 106  
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA# 21872800  

                                                                        Attorney Pro Se


The following is a complete list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the underlying lawsuit.  

Relator (Respondent)

John WorldPeace

John WorldPeace

2620 Fountainview, Suite 106  

Houston , Texas 77057

Tel. 713-784-7618

Fax. 713-784-9063

Attorney Pro Se                     


Respondent: Honorable James R. Fry

Presiding Judge in the Underlying Disciplinary Petition

(Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court, Harris County , Texas )  

15th Judicial District Court

200 S. Crockett St .

Sherman , Texas 75090

Tel:   903-813-4303 

Fax:  903-813-4304


Real Parties in Interest and Parties to the Case.  (Petitioner)

            Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Dawn Miller

Linda Acevedo

State Bar of Texas

P.O. Box 12487

Austin , Texas   78711

Tel:  512-453-5535

Fax: 512-453-6667

Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline


COMES NOW, WorldPeace and files this Relator’s Reply Regarding Relator’s Motion for Rehearing Regarding Restitution and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and would respectfully submit the following.


Sixteen years ago I changed my name to John WorldPeace and made a commitment to work toward increasing the peace on the planet.  Unlike most peace advocates, I did not chose to work from a lofty detached place of religious passivity but chose to work from the grassroots source of conflict in society; the courts.  I was determined to understand the root causes of conflict at the personal level; one on one confrontations where I could see more clearly what causes discord and disharmony in society.  I felt that I could generalize my finding and apply them to conflicts between groups and organizations and nations. 

            People have often criticized me for acting too aggressive and outside the realm of what they considered appropriate behavior for an advocate for peace and WorldPeace.  I remind them that Jesus was not passive.  I confirm to them that I am an advocate for peace but I am not a pacifist.

            The one thing that I have learned through my experiences and studies regarding peace is that there will never be a perfect peace because the nature of all that we know is change.  Everything that manifests eventually disintegrates.  Nothing is permanent even though some things are longer lived than others.

            I also realized that religion, as opposed to spirituality and a belief in God, are one of the greatest sources of conflict in society.  Religious bureaucracies are in essence theocracies with a façade of democracy in their administration.  The core defect in all religious bureaucracies is that the primary directive is to preserve the bureaucracy first and spread the message second.  This was stated recently by an Episcopal Bishop who said, “heresy is better than schism.”  As the Tao says, “the truth is often paradoxical.”  Where we would expect religion to lead the world society toward peace they have over the last three millenniums championed one religious war after another to the detriment of the whole of society.

            Lastly, from a global perspective, I realized that the only hope for WorldPeace was through the secular application of the law.  Democracy is the only hope for WorldPeace.  In that process, duly and fairly elected legislatures write the laws and the courts make sure those laws hold up to the template of justice.

            The true function of the courts is to maintain a level playing field between opposing factors in society and parties in any litigation.  If the playing field is level, then the judicial process manifests justice.  If the playing field is skewed, then chaos and anarchy manifest in various degrees in society.  The courts are charged with the preservation of justice and peace in society. 

The religious bureaucrats are incapable of justice and form exclusive societies.  The courts even though they do not claim a mandate from God, assume a mandate from all of society to do justice.

The courts must also consider that they must be ever vigilant so as to not repeat the injustice of supporting slavery.  When the courts had the opportunity to speak out, they not only remained silent but upheld slavery which was totally adverse to every word and letter of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America .

There will never be WorldPeace without world law.  The courts all over the world are the maintainers of justice and consequently the preservers of democracy and the guardians of peace and WorldPeace.


The conflict between myself and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline does not reach the lofty heights that other litigation reaches but none-the-less my litigation affects every lawyer in this state and therefore affects every citizen in this state.  Consequently, I know of no other body of law that has such a grass roots effect on justice as does the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

There is no question but that the TRDP is presently skewed in favor of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline and against Respondent attorneys.  There is a vast chasm between the dictates of the TRDP and the dictates of the significant body of law relating to legal malpractice.  The first allows any disgruntled client to harass his or her attorney by simply filing a grievance whereas the “suit within a suit” and “but for” requirements of a legal malpractice cause of action make it almost impossible for an ex-client to successfully sue his or her attorney for negligence.  So the threshold in the TRDP is non existent and the threshold for a legal malpractice suit is sky high.

There is little commonality between lawyer client litigation within these two bodies of law.

The real nuts and bolts problem is that placing such a low threshold on grievances significantly reduces legal services to the poor.  If there is any one lesson that I have learned from my experience in this process, it is that indigent clients are potentially deadly to one’s legal career.  A review of the complaints against me at will show this court that all six complainants involved less than $5,000 with half of that being allocated to one complainant.

Crucifying attorneys over frivolous and groundless complaints such that not returning a phone call can result in disbarment is doing nothing more than further restricting access to legal services in this state.  If attorneys are subject to this kind of abuse, then only a foolish attorney, of which I was one, will help the vast majority of citizens in this state who cannot afford legal services.  No where is this more evident than in family law.  The problem is so great that the Attorney General had to take on the burden of collecting past due child support.  In the family courts, money is the foundation of the law.  No money. No attorney. No justice.


Through my Applications for Writs of Mandamus, I have done everything I could to bring the defects of the TRDP and the abuses in the application of the TRDP by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline and Judge Fry to this court’s attention.  The TRDP is significantly defective but it can be fixed.  The fixing will result in the disciplinary leveling of the playing field such that the tremendous advantage that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline has in the process can be neutralized.  
For example:

1) If there is a legal malpractice suit filed, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline must be notified the same way that the Attorney General must be notified regarding areas of law that could affect the State.  The Commission for Lawyer Discipline would have to determine whether or not to process a complaint during the underlying lawsuit or waives it rights to prosecute. 

            2) Rule 97a TRCP compulsory counterclaims must be filed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against a Respondent attorney in a legal malpractice lawsuit and the Respondent attorney must file suit against the complainant in a disciplinary petition if he has a cause of action.  If a compulsory counterclaim is filed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline in a legal malpractice suit, then a judge needs to be assigned by this court to take over the lawsuit along the lines of Rule 3.02 TRDP.  (Cause No. 03-1049; In Re: John WorldPeace, Supreme Court of Texas; Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus Regarding Rule 41 TRCP Severance and Rule 174(b) TRCP Separate Trials)

            3) Respondent attorneys must be given their rights against self incrimination without being subjected to disbarment.  And this should be automatic not something that must be stated.  There is no greater defect in the TRDP than this.  A client has a right to his file.  The client can request his or her file and the Respondent attorney must provide it.  That is not the same as the Commission for Lawyer Discipline in the investigative process demanding information from the Respondent attorney outside what belongs to a client.  (Cause No. 03-1079; In re: John WorldPeace, Supreme Court of Texas; Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus Regarding the Fifth Amendment, The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct)

4)  There must be some range of punishment associated with violations.  This is done in the criminal law and should be done in the TRDP.  To make the most minor violation of the TDRPC a disbarment offense is unjust.  The trial judge should also be required to issue a findings of fact and conclusion of law specifically stating why he or she found a certain sanction for a certain violation.  A findings of fact and conclusion of law should be required to be attached to a Disciplinary Judgment for it to be valid.

It is unjust to find disbarment for every violation because if all but one violation is negated on appeal, the attorney is still disbarred.

5) Lay persons should not be allowed to be the gate keepers in determining what constitutes a complaint or inquiry.  This is absurd.

6) There should be a special panel of judges who have been tested and schooled in disciplinary actions to hear disciplinary petitions.  All parties suffer when the judge is apathetic or incompetent to hear disciplinary matters.  It slows down the disciplinary process and bogs down the appeals.

7) There must be a way for an attorney to supersede or stay a Judgment for Disbarment like in every other lawsuit except capital punishment cases.  If there is no supersedeas or stay available, then there needs to be a fast track appellate process.

8)  There must be a clear delineation as to when an attorney’s due process rights begin.  To say that an attorney has no due process rights in the investigatory process is wrong.  It gives the Commission for Lawyer Discipline a tremendous advantage to do things that it could not do in a lawsuit.

9) Attorney fees cannot be awarded to the Commission when no attorney fees were incurred.  And if attorney fees are allowed as sanctions, they need to be at the $27 per hour rate that Commission for Lawyer Discipline attorneys make and not at $150 per hour.  If outside attorneys are employed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, then they can be awarded their rate.

10)  If the TRDP is going to incorporate the TDRPC which defines reasonable and reasonably as “a reasonably prudent and competent attorney” then the Commission for Lawyer Discipline must prove up this standard of care with expert testimony just like in a legal malpractice suit.  (Cause No. 03-1070; In re: John WorldPeace, Supreme Court of Texas; Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus Regarding Expert Witnesses and Rules 1.03(A & B) and 1.15(D) Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure)

11)  The “must” provisions of the TRDP must be enforced or the term eliminated.  To write “must’ into the law and then not to enforce it is a farce.  I have a motion in the 14th Court of Appeals which moves for a stay of the underlying Judgment for Disbarment.  (See Exhibit “B”) 

My position is if the “must” provisions of Rule 3.01 TRDP are not applied to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline then the provisions of Rule 3.14 TRDP regarding no supersedeas or stays for Judgements for Disbarment should not be enforced.  To do otherwise is an unconstitutional selective enforcement of the TRDP against Respondent attorneys.  (Cause No. 03-0990; In re: John WorldPeace, Supreme Court of Texas; Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus Regarding Rule 3.01 and 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure)

12) Judgments for Disbarment should not become enforceable until the trial court loses its plenary power.  To do otherwise, creates confusion in the Respondent Attorney’s pending lawsuits.  (Cause No. 03-1083; In re: John WorldPeace, Supreme Court of Texas; Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus Regarding Judge Fry’s Interlocutory Judgment for Disbarment and Defacto Disbarment of WorldPeace)


WorldPeace would show the court that all of his applications for mandamus are interconnected.  This court cannot really consider one without considering them all.  In this mandamus regarding Restitution, it involves the fact that there were two trials on the issue.  Restitution involves res judicata and res judicata involves more than just restitution in the Collins complaint.  It involves whether the entire Collins complaint was barred by res judicata.

Further and more importantly, if the underlying Judgment for Disbarment is modified in any way, then the appellate process will begin anew after the Judgment for Disbarment is changed.  WorldPeace already has a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals based on the fact that the Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory.  (Exhibit “A” Sans Record)  On February 26, 2004 , the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Requested a response from the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.

If the other mandamus issues are not heard and Judge Fry simply corrects the restitution issue, then the amended Judgment for Disbarment will have all the same defects that are addressed by my other Applications for Writs of Mandamus.

The net result will be a continuation of what happened last year: WorldPeace was disbarred on April 23, 2003, then that order set aside on June 23, 2004, and then another interlocutory Judgment for Disbarment signed on August 27, 2003, and is about to be set aside. 

All this can be solved by this court requiring a response on all of WorldPeace’s Applications for Writs of Mandamus (the eight pending in this court and the four rejected by this court now pending in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals) and have one hearing to consider all the mandamus issues.

The disciplinary process is in crisis and everyone in this state is affected by it.  This matter needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.


            WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court for an oral hearing on all his mandamus issues and to mandamus Judge Fry to modify his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment to eliminate restitution and for such other and further relief in law or in equity as this court deems proper.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,


John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Suite 106
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA No. 21872800


            I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on February 27, 2004 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on February 27, 2004 , via EXPRESS MAIL.  

                                                                                                                                                                       John WorldPeace

How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?

The WorldPeace Banner







The WorldPeace Insignia : Explanation 

To order a WorldPeace Insignia lapel pin, go to: Order  

To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page

To the WorldPeace Peace Page