Open Letter 

to the Supreme CourT OF TEXAS

regarding the grievance process



In 1993, Dawn Miller, attorney for the State Bar in the Houston office, filed a disciplinary petition against WorldPeace after the statute of limitations had run (Cause No. 1993-078049, State Bar of Texas v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court, Harris County , Texas ).  LINK 1  The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.  LINK 2

The problem for WorldPeace was that the disciplinary petition became part of the permanent public record and every time WorldPeace became involved in a combative lawsuit, the opposing attorneys would bring out the fact that WorldPeace had been sued by the State Bar.  It would then be necessary for WorldPeace to show the court the dismissal with prejudice.  

The 1993 lawsuit has the effect of a permanent public reprimand, much worse that any reprimand appearing in the State Bar Journal.  The point is that the State Bar can arbitrarily publicly reprimand an attorney as they please.  Since the State Bar personnel are immune from prosecution for their bad acts per Rule 15.11 TRDP and since the State Bar is unwilling to process grievances filed against its own attorneys for their bad acts, LINK 3 the attorneys for the State Bar act as if they are above the law and use intimidation and harassment to prosecute attorneys who could never be held accountable in a civil lawsuit; mainly due to the “suit within a suit” requirement and other common law protections regarding attorney malpractice that force an ex-client to have a legitimate claim against an attorney before filing suit.  

Dawn Miller, is now the Chief Disciplinary counsel for the State Bar.   

Three years ago, WorldPeace won a lawsuit for Johnell Collins (Cause Number 715,017, Johnell Collins v. Alvin Arbuckle, et. al., CCCL # 2, Harris County, Texas) who refused to pay WorldPeace his contractual fee.  After six months of arguing, Collins filed a grievance with the State Bar.  WorldPeace believed that the fact that Collins filed a grievance was an undeniable statement by Collins that she did not intend to pay WorldPeace.  WorldPeace then sued Collins in the 281st District Court in June 2000.  (Cause No. 2000-31108, WorldPeace v. Collins, 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas)  

When WorldPeace was notified that the State Bar was going to proceed with the grievance, he communicated to Dawn Miller that if she proceeded with the frivolous and groundless grievance, WorldPeace, due to the burden that Dawn Miller had wrongly placed on him in 1993, would shut down the grievance process and see Dawn Miller, Leigh Arneman and J G Molleston, attorneys for the State Bar, disbarred.  

Dawn Miller in response not only continued with the Collins matter but also processed other frivolous complaints.  WorldPeace cannot prove it at this time but he believes that the State Bar took special interest in anyone who called in to complain about WorldPeace and encouraged them to file a grievance.  See the main page for summaries of each grievance.  

WorldPeace would show that Robert Mapes, an investigator with the Houston office of the State Bar, who is not an attorney (and who in a Bill of Exception created by WorldPeace in the underlying trial admitted that he did not fully understand the TDRPC and only filled out pre-printed forms created by the office of Dawn Miller, the Chief Disciplinary counsel LINK 4) processed 12 frivolous and groundless complaints against WorldPeace, and intentionally, knowingly and maliciously assigned eight of those complaints to the Alan Levine Committee, one of thirty committees in Houston .  LINK 5  Two of the other grievances were assigned to the Jim Adler Committee even after WorldPeace objected to Adler sitting on an investigatory panel.

By the way.  Mr. Mapes just happened to retire after testifying in the underlying trial.

The key factor here is that Alan Levine, attorney at law, stated in the Fraser-Nash grievance hearing regarding WorldPeace, on the investigatory video, that she could go out the door and down the street and find any number of “legitimate attorneys”; suggesting that WorldPeace was not a legitimate attorney and revealing his bias.  WorldPeace would show that Mr. Mapes knew he could count on the Alan Levine committee to come back with a suspension or disbarment recommendation against WorldPeace no matter how frivolous the complaint. LINK 5

WorldPeace believes that one of the main biases of Mr. Levine was centered around WorldPeace comparing Ariel Sharon’s treatment of the Palestinians to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews on WorldPeace web page at  WorldPeace believes that there is a Jewish presence in the State Bar that is aligned against WorldPeace and one of WorldPeace’s counterclaims in the underlying disciplinary petition is for religious discrimination which Judge Fry dismissed by way of granting the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment even though contrary to the requirements of Rule 166a(i) Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission did not list the elements of religious discrimination in the Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.  LINK 6 

As additional proof, Mark Sanders, a Jewish attorney at law with Tribble and Sanders, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, and attorney for Landmark Chevrolet and Bill Heard Chevrolet, hired D. Craig Landin, attorney at law and municipal judge in Fort Bend County, to file a grievance against WorldPeace that was undeniably for the purpose influencing WorldPeace’s client's underlying lawsuits against Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet. (This is an improper purpose per No. 15 under "Scope" of the TDRPC.)  

In a deposition of one of the Landmark/Bill Heard Plaintiffs, Mark Sanders stated on the record to WorldPeace that he had read WorldPeace's web page regarding Ariel Sharon and as a Jew took offense at it.  LINK 7  

WorldPeace alleges that Mark Sanders conspired with other Jews at the State Bar, (WorldPeace believes that Brian Schaffer, Vicki Rudell, Leigh Arneman, and Alan Levine are Jewish and WorldPeace suspects that Dawn Miller may be.  WorldPeace has not made inquiries of the religious beliefs of Mr. Mapes, J G Molleston, or the other members of the Levine Committee or D. Craig Landin.)  

Mark Sanders, on behalf of Landmark Chevrolet and Bill Heard Chevrolet filed suit against WorldPeace personally, based on WorldPeace filing suit against his clients.  LINK 8 The grievance was a tactic used in the Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet lawsuit against WorldPeace and the lawsuits WorldPeace filed on behalf of his clients against Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet.  

WorldPeace would show, that without filing a counter claim, Mark Sanders and his partner Wes Tribble settled the Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet suit against WorldPeace by paying WorldPeace $13,000.  LINK 9  Yes, Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet, the Plaintiffs, paid WorldPeace, the Defendant, to settle the lawsuit they filed against him.  But the grievance lives on.  LINK 10  WorldPeace has sued Mark Sanders and D. Craig Landin for their malicious acts to challenge Rule 15.21 TRDP.  

WorldPeace would show that the vendictiveness of Dawn Miller, and the Jewish influence at the Houston office of the State Bar are two of the underlying motivators of the following abuses of the grievance process against WorldPeace.   

WorldPeace would show that he deliberately created a fact pattern, which will allow the Supreme Court of Texas, which coincidentally is presently considering revising the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, LINK 11 to fully examine virtually all aspects of the TDRPC as it is actually applied to attorneys in Texas .   

WorldPeace did not deliberately harm any client.  WorldPeace believes that the local office of the State Bar encouraged people who called in regarding WorldPeace to file a grievance against WorldPeace.  The fact pattern WorldPeace created had to do only with events that happened after he received notice of the complaints from the State Bar.  

It was WorldPeace hopes that he could process the underlying lawsuit in such a way as to methodically deal with the many problems in the State Bar grievance process but WorldPeace was unexpectedly undermined by Judge James R. Fry, who has undeniably attempted to arbitrarily and summarily disbar WorldPeace.  (See the Applications for Writ of Mandamus filed by WorldPeace on the main page. )

When the underlying lawsuit began, WorldPeace gave Judge Fry the benefit of the doubt on many underlying rulings that were against WorldPeace.  However, as the lawsuit proceeded to trial, WorldPeace began to suspect a serious bias and prejudice with Judge Fry.  The post judgment ruling of Judge Fry up to Friday, November 7, 2003, have left no doubt in WorldPeace's mind that something is wrong with Judge Fry.  

WorldPeace filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Fry because he believed he was biased 1) because of WorldPeace’s comments about the Democratic Party, when WorldPeace ran for Governor in 2001 and 2002, Judge Fry is a Democrat LINK 12.  2) because WorldPeace withdrew from the Masonic Lodge in 1988 after he changed his name.  Judge Fry is a mason.  3)  WorldPeace has two major lawsuits against the Presbyterian Church LINK 13.  Judge Fry is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.  

Whatever the reason, Judge Fry, should be removed from the underlying lawsuit and another judge appointed in his place who has more experience in complex civil lawsuits and a desire to stick with the lawsuit no matter where it goes as well as a judge who is above suspicion of bias and prejudice.  

The following is a shorthand rendition of the inherent problems in the grievance process and the specific problems in the underlying WorldPeace's disciplinary petition.  

1)  There is no way to separate the significant body of attorney malpractice law from the law of disciplinary petitions.  Legal malpractice in Texas has an almost insurmountable barrier against clients who sue attorneys due the “suit within a suit” requirement.  Yet in the disciplinary process an attorney can be disbarred for not making enough calls to a client regardless of whether the attorney was successful in pursuing the client’s problem or not.  The “suit within a suit” requirement must be harmonized with the TDRPC.  

In the extreme, as is evidenced by the Williams grievance in the underlying lawsuit, WorldPeace was disbarred for refusing to file a frivolous and groundless lawsuit.  Judge Fry found disbarment for each individual TDRPC violation which is in itself abusive and draconian.

There is no way that attorneys should have to deal with two such extreme bodies of law; malpractice and the TDRPC and disbarred WorldPeace for violations of those rules.   

2)  An attorney can be disbarred for asserting his rights against self incrimination as WorldPeace was.  (It appears that Rule 1.06(Q)(4) is being eliminated from the TRCP) per the new proposed rules.

3)  The malpractice law in Texas requires an expert witness to prove up “reasonably prudent attorney” and yet in the underlying lawsuit, Judge Fry ruled that an expert was not necessary to prove up the “reasonably prudent attorney” in Rule 1.03(a) & (b) TDRPC.  

4)  How can a non attorney, State Bar investigators like Mr. Mapes, who in WorldPeace’s Bill of Exception in the underlying disciplinary petition stated that he did not understand the TDRPC’s LINK 4 be allowed to determine which grievance to convert into complaint?  Further, the TRDP states that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, per Rule 2.09 TDRP must make that determination.  This is not what is happening in reality.   Rule 2.09 suggests that an attorney must make the call if not the chief Disciplinary Counsel.  

5)  How can the trial court be required to process a disciplinary petition in 180 days per Rule 3.03 TRDP and yet there is no fast track in the appellate process when an attorney who is disbarred and cannot supercede the Judgment for Disbarment per Rule 3.14 TRDP.  This allows a defacto disbarment. 

6)  There is no constitutional due process guarantee in the grievance process but during that process if an attorney does not cooperate with the investigative committee he or she can be disbarred.  LINK 14  

7)  There is a conflict with immunity from slander for statements filed in a lawsuit and the breach of confidentiality per Rule 2.15 TRDP.  LINK 15 Johnell Collins stated in her answer in the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit that she had filed a grievance knowing she was not to reveal this.  Then later her attorney, McNab Miller placed more confidential grievance information in the lawsuit.  LINK 16 WorldPeace filed a grievance on Miller that was Denied.  LINK 17

8)  There is a problem with offering an attorney a public reprimand under the threat of a disciplinary petition which is a public reprimand.  So the State Bar says to an attorney if you do not accept a public reprimand we will sue you and get our public reprimand anyway.

9)  The grievance process is flawed from the non-attorney investigator who makes the Rule 2.09 TRDP complaint decisions, to the assignment of the grievance investigating committee, to the attorneys who prosecute the disciplinary petitions, to the judges who are not competent to hear complex lawsuits that affect an attorney’s career.  

10) The grievance system is set up to throw a few attorneys to the lions so that the public can see that there is a disciplinary system at work.  But to have public members vote on legal matters that come up in a grievance investigation is nonsense.  The public members vote with the attorneys.  If Judge Fry is having a hard time understanding Rule 166a(i) TRCP LINK 18 then what does that say about a public members ability to make a legal decision at the investigatory level.  

11)  Attorneys like Jim Adler get on the grievance committees so they can protect themselves from grievances that are filed against them.  WorldPeace objected to Jim Adler being on his grievance investigative committee and Mr. Mapes assigned a second grievance to Mr. Adler’s committee anyway.  LINK 5  

12)  The common law works well.  If a client has a problem with an attorney, then he needs to file suit.  If not, it is just like everything else in life, you can’t have what you can’t afford.  That is the way the attorney malpractice system works in Texas .  It should be the way the grievance process works.  At the least both systems should be the same.  Either bring down the barriers on legal malpractice or raise it on TDRPC violations.

13)  Most of the TDRPC are nonsense.  The real issues center around attorneys stealing money.  But there are laws (both civil and criminal) that cover that as well.  

The net effect of all this is to reduce legal coverage for the poor.  With the restrictions imposed by the TDRPC you can be disbarred for one violation.  And we all know that people who get things for free do not appreciate them.  Allowing marginal clients to call upon the State Bar to file grievances against attorneys who gave them free services is nonsense.   

After dealing with the State Bar for ten years, I can tell you that I no longer take on clients who have no money.  It is just too dangerous.  The total money involved in the six grievances against me is a couple of thousand dollars.  If I am going to get disbarred, at least I want to have made some money in the process.





December 17, 2003Relator WorldPeace's Motion for Rehearing Regarding Rule 3.01 and 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

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