The Texas Attorney General ( English : Texas Attorney General ) is the attorney general of the US state of Texas . The current incumbent, Republican Ken Paxton , has held the position ever since January 5, 2015. The department has offices in the William P. Clements State Office Building in downtown Austin , the state capital.
History Attorney General
The attorney general’s office was first established by executive order of the government of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Attorneys general of the Republic of Texas and the first four attorneys general under the 1845 state Constitution are appointed by the governor. The office was made elective in 1850 by a constitutional amendment.
The Attorney General is elected to a four-year term. In 2013, Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that he would not seek re-election and would run for governor . In the November 2014, was elected governor of Texas.
To succeed him, Ken Paxton defeated Dan Branch, elected to the Texas House of Representatives from 2003 to 2015, in the Republican primary by a margin of 26%. He is easily elected in the November election as the 50th Attorney General of Texas (there is a historic dispute as to whether he was the 50th or 51st Attorney General). Paxton swore January 5, 2015in the Senate Chamber of the Texas Capitol.
Governor Rick Perry , Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst , United States Senator Ted Cruz and Lieutenant Governor-Elect Dan Patrick (in) attend the swearing-in ceremony.
History of Advocates General
|2||John W. Harris||1846–1849||Democratic|
|3||Henry Percy Brewster||1849-1850||Democratic|
|4||Andrew Jackson Hamilton||1850||Democratic|
|6||Thomas J. Jennings||1852–1856||Democratic|
|8||Malcolm D. Graham||1858–1860||Democratic|
|9||George M. Flournoy||1860–1862||Democratic|
|10||Nathan G. Shelley||1862–1864||Democratic|
|11||Benjamin E. Tarver||1864–1865||Democratic|
|13||William M. Walton||1866–1867||Democratic|
|14||Ezekiel B. Turner||1867–1870||unionist|
|16||George W. Clark||1874–1876||Democratic|
|19||James H. McLeary||1880-1882||Democratic|
|20||John D. Templeton||1882–1886||Democratic|
|22||Charles A. Culberson||1890–1894||Democratic|
|23||Martin Mcnulty gru||1894–1898||Democratic|
|24||Thomas Slater Smith||1898-1901||Democratic|
|25||Charles K. Belli||1901-1904||Democratic|
|26||Robert V. Davidson||1904–1910||Democratic|
|27||Gioiello P. Lightfoot||1910–1912||Democratic|
|28||James D. Walthall||1912–1913||Democratic|
|30||Calvin Maples Cureton||1919–1921||Democratic|
|31||Walter Angus Keeling||1921–1925||Democratic|
|34||Robert L. Bobbitt||1929–1931||Democratic|
|40||John Ben Shepherd||1953–1957||Democratic|
|50||Ken paxton||Dal 2015||Republican|
Attorney vs Lawyer
The lawyer who prosecutes a colleague with numerous lawsuits which later turned out to be unfounded violates the duty of correctness and connection.
A lawyer files a complaint against a colleague complaining that he has been the victim of unfounded criminal and disciplinary complaints for years , all referring to the civil disputes that see his client opposed to the lawyer, for issues connected to the use of condominium spaces in the building by both inhabited. The District Disciplinary Council imposes on the professional the sanction of suspension from the practice of the activity for 6 months .
The lawyer appeals to the National Forensic Council which, with the sentence of 13 May 2022, n. 57 (text at the bottom) , confirms the sanction imposed given that the lawyer has violated the duty to behave with loyalty and correctness towards colleagues (pursuant to articles 19 and 38 of the Code of ethics ). In fact, the conduct of a lawyer who prosecutes a colleague with a series of unfounded complaints violates the duty of fairness and connection.
A lawyer was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for having presented numerous complaints-lawsuits – which later proved to be unfounded – against a colleague for crimes of various kinds. The latter filed a complaint complaining that she had been the victim for years of unfounded criminal and disciplinary complaints , all referring to the civil disputes that saw her assisted opposing the accused, for issues connected to the use of condominium spaces in the building by both inhabited. In particular, the lawyer subjected to disciplinary proceedings:
- had filed a completely unfounded complaint for trespassing and unlawful interference in private life against the Colleague, who, as was ascertained, had limited herself to standing on the landing belonging to the condominium, without affecting the privacy of the accused ; the proceeding was archived by the GIP;
- he had filed a complaint in which he accused the Colleague of having unduly produced images of his private life in a civil trial; this proceeding was also archived by the GIP as the photographs relating to the state of the places had been produced in the possession proceedings only for the purpose of demonstrating the validity of the claim;
- had filed a complaint accusing the Colleague of having removed the gate on the landing on the first floor of the house, also in this case the file was filed .
Furthermore, the lawyer was accused in a criminal proceeding for defamation against the Colleague because in the presence of several people she uttered offensive words against her, harming her honor and decorum.
The District Disciplinary Council recognized the disciplinary responsibility of the lawyer and imposed the sanction of suspension from the exercise of the profession for six months.