Preview
FILED
5/18/2022 11:57 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Madison McCarrier DEPUTY
TEXAS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY
*
Plaintiff *
DENLEY ANN BISHOP *
v. * Case No. DC20-03959
*
*
*
Defendant
BRADY HOWELL *
MOTION FOR REHEARING ON AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Legal Malpractice)
COMES NOW the plaintiff, by counsel, and in support of this Motion for Rehearing on
the Legal Malpractice Complaint states as follows:
1. There was tremendous confusion in this case. The Planitiff spoke to Brady Howell, and
he asked her to dismiss the case against him. He focused on the issue Where the Cooke County
judge and the attorney for child welfare for Cooke County filed a motion against me as a
vexatious litigant. So, instead of vacating the order due to them not having jurisdiction since we
are from Oklahoma, they have harassed me. I have been threatened over and over. He asked me
to drop the case against him. He claimed he was not the one who was in the wrong but only
Jeremy Oney. I told him that if he could do the right thing and tell the judge what happened was
misconduct and that Texas never had jurisdiction and that it was suppressed from the court.
Brady told me that he was going to fix the situation, he said he would call the judge and explain
we were working something out. So, I thought that is what he was doing. But I guess something
persuaded him another way. And, I asked him to fix the issue and that is it. I told him to just
do the right thing and see that my children were returned to Oklahoma. He told me that he did
not know exactly what I was asking. He said that he would call the judge and explain what is
going on and he was not going to be able to go to the hearing. I asked him to call me when he
knew what is going on if he was going to postpone the hearing, determine if the judge can
straighten out the mess, and what would be the next step. I waited several weeks for him to call
me back. Then on that Thursday I called him over and over and he refused to answer his cell
phone. He left it that he needed to call the judge because he was not able to be there. I called
him several times again. I could not get him to answer. So, I contacted the law firm where he
worked, and they told me that they have no idea how to get ahold of him. I explained the
situation to them, and they said that is the reason that they discharged him, there were never any
absolutes with him. They said he was the same way at the law firm. And, they said they have no
idea how to get ahold of him or if he is still practicing law. So, I contacted the court asking what
is going on or if they knew What was going on with him. The man in the clerk’s office told me
that there were issues with Shirl Townsends phone and email. So, he walked up to go get her.
She said she never got any information from Brady so again he did not tell the truth.
2. This all happened after the Dallas District Attorney decided to investigate this case
because there appeared to be some wrongdoing. I was told by Jessica Page the supervisor to
child welfare in Dallas, Texas at the Oak Cliff child welfare office to get to the DA right away
that she investigated this case, and my children were never supposed to be in Texas. I told her I
know. So, right after the district attorney investigated the case the attorney for the state filed a
vexatious litigant against me, instead of doing the right thing. So, Brady said that if I continued
this case against him, that the judge would find me to be problem. And, he told me that it would
not go good for me. I felt threatened by this. He told me that I may go to jail if I continued this
case against him and he did actually threaten me. He told me not to contact the court or judge he
would do that from here. He was supposably going to let the judge know that we were going to
be working something out? I am not sure what he was doing. I know I felt that he actually made
me feel intimidated. I found that odd from him, I thought that he was an OK guy. I felt very
threatened by his comment and how these attorneys and judge from Cooke County were gauging
up on me. I was threatened by all three, the two attorneys in Cooke County and the judge in a
hearing there. I sat there for two hours and was never allowed to say anything. I felt it was a
mechanism used against me for the lawsuit I filed against the attorneys. I especially felt
threatened by Brady when he told me that I may go to jail if I continued this case against him and
that the judge was against me and that the court was not for me right now. He then told me that
it is in my own best interest to not show up or drop this case. I felt pretty upset at this point. I do
believe that this is not even legal, but as you can imagine, I am about over this! When I called
the court, they told me that they just saw the same thing that I saw on the docket sheet under
Dallas County. There was no information about what Brady worked out with the judge? I then
tried to call again and the man at the court coordinators office told me to get with Shirl
Townsend and see what she has heard. Then I was told that I probably have not been able to get
ahold of her, her phone and internet were not working. I explained that I really needed to find
out what is going on because Brady is not turning out to be reliable again. So, this guy went and
got Shirl and told her what is going on. She told me to file something to let you know. I called
her back telling her that I was afraid to file anything! After Brady threating me, I was scared and
afraid to do anything. He claimed at one point that he could not represent me again because he
worked for a new law firm and that he was not on his own anymore. So, I asked to speak to his
partner, and I would explain what is going on. He told me that he would speak to the partner and
call me back. Again, he never called back. The petitioner called the law firm and they claimed
he no longer worked there. So, again the Petitioner felt let down and had no idea where this
lawyer disappeared to. I think I should have called her immediately, but I was trusting that Brady
would do the right thing. I guess I should have known better. She told me to not worry that is all
of the stuff in Cooke County, it has nothing to do with Dallas County. So, if you could please let
me know what to do. I think we could reschedule, but I think that due to large mess that
surrounds this case, I do not have any idea what to do.
3. The Plaintiff then reached out to the malpractice lawyer and find out what to do.
There was also a mediator and he told her that if they worked out an agreement that would be
between the two of them. She was told to get ahold of the judge. The mediator told her to write
a letter to the judge.
4. The Plaintiff wrote a letter to the judge and Shirl Townsand emailed her back and
told her that she could not accept the letter Via an email. The plaintiff was trying to find out if
there was still a hearing if she could appear via zoom since she is a substitute teacher and she
was called to work that day. And, she was not sure what Brady or the lawyers were up to since
they filed a motion to threaten her in retaliation against her filing this lawsuit. Even though any
threats made against a Plaintiff after filing a lawsuit is illegal, they did it anyway.
5. The Plaintiff tried to reach the attorney Robert Toby at Toby, Johnson and
Baurach, LLC and his assistant Michelle Johnson told her that he was out of the country until
next months, so he would not be able to do anything about it until next month. Therefore, the
Plaintiff would request that this Court please reschedule this hearing until Mr. Robert Toby will
be back in the country.
6. The concern is that the defendant has intentionally evaded and deceived the plaintiff
again. He claimed he was going to work out the case so that the mother could get her children
back and that he was going to take care of this. This really makes the Plaintiff even more
disgusted with this case. The Plaintiff is seeking a rehearing since she is wanting to show the
attorney that she is not happy with his behavior and his use of fear to get her to drop the case.
The determination of the filing of this rehearing is to show that she is disgruntled with the way
this case was handled by him and she will continue to act against the case if some resolution is
not found regarding the legal malpractice case or return of her children to her custody. “The
purpose of such a motion of a rehearing is to provide notice to the agency that the moving party
is dissatisfied with its final order and that an appeal will be prosecuted if the ruling is not
changed.” Suburban Utility Corp. v. Public Utility Com., 652 S.W.2d 358, 364, 1983 Tex.
LEXIS 320, *15, 26 Tex. Sup. J. 395 (Tex. May 18, 1983)
7. After speaking to an attorney of which the Plaintiff at this time does not want to
disclose, he stated that this case is about several attorneys who defrauded the court and the
Plaintiffs. He told her that she has a civil conspiracy case against all of these lawyers. Again,
the Plaintiff believes this may very well be true, since now she has been threatened over and over
and again with the vexatious litigant case too. Right before this hearing on the vexatious litigant
case all three attorneys that lied and suppressed evidence against her were present in the hearing
room in a hearing right before her hearing. And, that is not an accident. It was intentional, the
threats just continue.
8. With a case this serious and the amount of fraud that was committed it is important for
this court to grant a rehearing since the issues are of great importance. Civil conspiracy has
always been taken very seriously in the Texas courts. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371
S.W.3d 366, 369, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, *1, 2012 WL 1071231 (Tex. App. Houston lst
Dist. March 29, 2012 In a case alleging civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act, appellant judgment creditor challenged a decision from the 151st
District Court, Harris County, Texas, which entered judgment in favor of appellees, an
accountant and two attorneys, and granted a motion to quiet title. After judgment was entered in
the case originally on appeal, rehearing was sought. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371
S.W.3d 366, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, 2012 WL 1071231 (Court of Appeals of Texas, First
District, HoustonMarch 29, 2012 Motions for rehearing were granted, an earlier opinion was
withdrawn, and a new opinion was issued. The decision of the trial court was reversed, and the
case was remanded for further proceedings. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d
366, 369, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, *1, 2012 WL 1071231 (Tex. App. Houston lst Dist.
March 29, 2012) Courts have granted a rehearing whenever there appears to be misconduct in a
case. Any time there is negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, tortious interference,
breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud the court is in favor of
rehearing due to the nature of the case. Petitioner previous lessee sought review of an order from
the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, which reversed a directed verdict in its
favor and affirmed a jury verdict in favor of respondent royalty owners in an action by the
owners and respondent subsequent lessee for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence,
tortious interference, breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Exxon
Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 250, 54 Tex. Sup. J. 761,
173 Oil & Gas Rep. 36 (Supreme Court of Texas April 1, 2011, Opinion Delivered The court
found that there was fraud and sent the case back. “We affirm the court of appeals' judgment, for
different reasons, reversing the trial court's directed verdict in favor of Exxon on Emerald's fraud
claim. Finally, we remand the case to the court of appeals (1) to consider the royalty owners'
claims for fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, tortious interference
with economic opportunity, and breach of regulatory duty to plug wells properly, and (2) to
remand Emerald's fraud claim to the trial court for further proceedings.” Exxon Corp. v.
Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 221, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 250, *71-72, 54 Tex. Sup. J.
761, 173 Oi1& Gas Rep. 36 (Tex. Aprn 1,2011)
9. When there are issues that need to be investigated it is in the interest of justice to rehear
the case. The Plaintiffs eyes have been opened to the public concern of the unethical behavior
of lawyers. When a lawyer commits misconduct or unethical behavior it is the courts duty to
continue to make decisions on how these actions should be handled. Whether allegations against
a lawyer, labeled as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or some other cause of action, are actually
claims for professional negligence or something else is a question of law to be determined by the
court. Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d
229, 231, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *1, 2012 WL 5503891 (Tex. App. San Antonio
November 14, 2012) There were serious issues that happened during this case and the Plaintiff
believes that there is a case for malpractice her so in the interest of justice a rehearing would be
advised. “A breach of fiduciary duty occurs when an attorney, among other things, subordinates
his client's interest to his own, retains the client's funds, engages in self-dealing, improperly uses
client confidences, fails to disclose conflicts of interest, or makes misrepresentations to achieve
these ends. Unlike conflicts of interest between jointly represented clients, the types of conflicts
of interest which could give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty are those in which the lawyer has a
direct pecuniary interest in the litigation that is adverse to the client, and the attorney pursues his
own interest to the client's detriment.” Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d 229, 231, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *1, 2012 WL 5503891
(Tex. App. San Antonio November 14, 2012) The trial court's judgment is reversed as to
Riverwalk's negligence claim and its breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging that Akin Gump: (1)
intentionally withheld tendering the defense of the Auburn lawsuit to the insurance carrier; and
(2) overworked the file and charged excessive fees, and those claims are remanded to the trial
court for fiirther proceeding. Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d 229, 239-240, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *25, 2012 WL 5503891
(Tex. App. San Antonio November 14, 2012) The same has happened here the attorney has
committed a breach of fiduciary duty when he subordinated his client's interest to his own,
engaged in self-dealing, improperly uses client confidences, fails to disclose conflicts of interest,
or makes misrepresentations to achieve these ends. And the attorney pursues his own interest to
the client's detriment.
10. The Plaintiff believes that there is a genuine issue here and that more than likely she will
be able to recover damages against this attorney. The court found that client was entitled to
recover in negligence action against attorney, because there was no subjective good faith excuse
for attorney negligence. Cosgrove v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 31, 32 Tex.
Sup. J. 501 (Supreme Court of Texas June 28, 1989, Decided). She gave the attorney a second
chance to fix this case and he told her he would and then appeared to disappear after that.
WHEREFORE, these premises considered, the plaintiff request this court to grant her
motion for rehearing, since she has excellent grounds, and such other relief that the Court may
deem appropriate.
genie)! 313%,?
Denley Bishop
Pro-Se
19me 315110?
/s/ Denley Bishop
306 N. Street
12th
Duncan, OK 73533
denlevbishon@vahoo.com
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
This is to certify that on May 18, 2022 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
was served on
cc:
Brady Howell
7333 Valley View Lane
Ste. 306 Dallas, TX
75240 httg://www.bdh-
|aw.com
Phone: 940-367-1031
Mark T. Zuniga
Office of General Counsel
Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services
2401 Ridgepoint Dr., Bldg. H-2, MC:Y-956
Austin, TX 78754
(512) 929-6565
Vicki L. Foster
4500 Mercantile Plaza, Ste. 300
Fort Worth, TX 76137
James D. Saint
Texas Dept. Family and Protective Services
1200 E. Copeland Rd., Ste. 400
Arlington, TX 76011-4937
Denley Bishop
10
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I, Denley Bishop, certify that I have conferred with Counsel for the State, Brady Howells office for
service, Mark T. Zuniga and he does not oppose this complaint. Vicki Foster appeared at the hearing
and she told the judge this is very serious she did not believe he should remain on this case. In
regards to my motion she did not respond, James Saint did not respond, Emma Guzman Ramon her
disposition was unprofessional.
_6Ma 63w—
Denley Ann Bishop
Plaintiff:
Denley Ann Bishop Council:
Shane Franklin Bishop
306 N. 12th Street Duncan, 0K 73533
Brady Howell
7333 Valley View Lane
Ste. 306 Dallas, TX
75240 http://wwwbdh-
law.com
Phone: 940-367-1031
Respondant:
Judge Janelle Havercamp James Saint
101 S. Dixon Street 5751 Kroger Dr. Ste. 239
Gainesville, TX 76240-4796 Keller, TX 76244
11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 64647492
Status as of 5/19/2022 10:42 AM CST
Associated Case Party: BRADY HOWELL
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brady Howell howell.brady@gmail.com 5/18/2022 11:57:25 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 5/18/2022 11:57 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Madison McCarrier DEPUTY TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY * Plaintiff * DENLEY ANN BISHOP * v. * Case No. DC20-03959 * * * Defendant BRADY HOWELL * MOTION FOR REHEARING ON AMENDED COMPLAINT (Legal Malpractice) COMES NOW the plaintiff, by counsel, and in support of this Motion for Rehearing on the Legal Malpractice Complaint states as follows: 1. There was tremendous confusion in this case. The Planitiff spoke to Brady Howell, and he asked her to dismiss the case against him. He focused on the issue Where the Cooke County judge and the attorney for child welfare for Cooke County filed a motion against me as a vexatious litigant. So, instead of vacating the order due to them not having jurisdiction since we are from Oklahoma, they have harassed me. I have been threatened over and over. He asked me to drop the case against him. He claimed he was not the one who was in the wrong but only Jeremy Oney. I told him that if he could do the right thing and tell the judge what happened was misconduct and that Texas never had jurisdiction and that it was suppressed from the court. Brady told me that he was going to fix the situation, he said he would call the judge and explain we were working something out. So, I thought that is what he was doing. But I guess something persuaded him another way. And, I asked him to fix the issue and that is it. I told him to just do the right thing and see that my children were returned to Oklahoma. He told me that he did not know exactly what I was asking. He said that he would call the judge and explain what is going on and he was not going to be able to go to the hearing. I asked him to call me when he knew what is going on if he was going to postpone the hearing, determine if the judge can straighten out the mess, and what would be the next step. I waited several weeks for him to call me back. Then on that Thursday I called him over and over and he refused to answer his cell phone. He left it that he needed to call the judge because he was not able to be there. I called him several times again. I could not get him to answer. So, I contacted the law firm where he worked, and they told me that they have no idea how to get ahold of him. I explained the situation to them, and they said that is the reason that they discharged him, there were never any absolutes with him. They said he was the same way at the law firm. And, they said they have no idea how to get ahold of him or if he is still practicing law. So, I contacted the court asking what is going on or if they knew What was going on with him. The man in the clerk’s office told me that there were issues with Shirl Townsends phone and email. So, he walked up to go get her. She said she never got any information from Brady so again he did not tell the truth. 2. This all happened after the Dallas District Attorney decided to investigate this case because there appeared to be some wrongdoing. I was told by Jessica Page the supervisor to child welfare in Dallas, Texas at the Oak Cliff child welfare office to get to the DA right away that she investigated this case, and my children were never supposed to be in Texas. I told her I know. So, right after the district attorney investigated the case the attorney for the state filed a vexatious litigant against me, instead of doing the right thing. So, Brady said that if I continued this case against him, that the judge would find me to be problem. And, he told me that it would not go good for me. I felt threatened by this. He told me that I may go to jail if I continued this case against him and he did actually threaten me. He told me not to contact the court or judge he would do that from here. He was supposably going to let the judge know that we were going to be working something out? I am not sure what he was doing. I know I felt that he actually made me feel intimidated. I found that odd from him, I thought that he was an OK guy. I felt very threatened by his comment and how these attorneys and judge from Cooke County were gauging up on me. I was threatened by all three, the two attorneys in Cooke County and the judge in a hearing there. I sat there for two hours and was never allowed to say anything. I felt it was a mechanism used against me for the lawsuit I filed against the attorneys. I especially felt threatened by Brady when he told me that I may go to jail if I continued this case against him and that the judge was against me and that the court was not for me right now. He then told me that it is in my own best interest to not show up or drop this case. I felt pretty upset at this point. I do believe that this is not even legal, but as you can imagine, I am about over this! When I called the court, they told me that they just saw the same thing that I saw on the docket sheet under Dallas County. There was no information about what Brady worked out with the judge? I then tried to call again and the man at the court coordinators office told me to get with Shirl Townsend and see what she has heard. Then I was told that I probably have not been able to get ahold of her, her phone and internet were not working. I explained that I really needed to find out what is going on because Brady is not turning out to be reliable again. So, this guy went and got Shirl and told her what is going on. She told me to file something to let you know. I called her back telling her that I was afraid to file anything! After Brady threating me, I was scared and afraid to do anything. He claimed at one point that he could not represent me again because he worked for a new law firm and that he was not on his own anymore. So, I asked to speak to his partner, and I would explain what is going on. He told me that he would speak to the partner and call me back. Again, he never called back. The petitioner called the law firm and they claimed he no longer worked there. So, again the Petitioner felt let down and had no idea where this lawyer disappeared to. I think I should have called her immediately, but I was trusting that Brady would do the right thing. I guess I should have known better. She told me to not worry that is all of the stuff in Cooke County, it has nothing to do with Dallas County. So, if you could please let me know what to do. I think we could reschedule, but I think that due to large mess that surrounds this case, I do not have any idea what to do. 3. The Plaintiff then reached out to the malpractice lawyer and find out what to do. There was also a mediator and he told her that if they worked out an agreement that would be between the two of them. She was told to get ahold of the judge. The mediator told her to write a letter to the judge. 4. The Plaintiff wrote a letter to the judge and Shirl Townsand emailed her back and told her that she could not accept the letter Via an email. The plaintiff was trying to find out if there was still a hearing if she could appear via zoom since she is a substitute teacher and she was called to work that day. And, she was not sure what Brady or the lawyers were up to since they filed a motion to threaten her in retaliation against her filing this lawsuit. Even though any threats made against a Plaintiff after filing a lawsuit is illegal, they did it anyway. 5. The Plaintiff tried to reach the attorney Robert Toby at Toby, Johnson and Baurach, LLC and his assistant Michelle Johnson told her that he was out of the country until next months, so he would not be able to do anything about it until next month. Therefore, the Plaintiff would request that this Court please reschedule this hearing until Mr. Robert Toby will be back in the country. 6. The concern is that the defendant has intentionally evaded and deceived the plaintiff again. He claimed he was going to work out the case so that the mother could get her children back and that he was going to take care of this. This really makes the Plaintiff even more disgusted with this case. The Plaintiff is seeking a rehearing since she is wanting to show the attorney that she is not happy with his behavior and his use of fear to get her to drop the case. The determination of the filing of this rehearing is to show that she is disgruntled with the way this case was handled by him and she will continue to act against the case if some resolution is not found regarding the legal malpractice case or return of her children to her custody. “The purpose of such a motion of a rehearing is to provide notice to the agency that the moving party is dissatisfied with its final order and that an appeal will be prosecuted if the ruling is not changed.” Suburban Utility Corp. v. Public Utility Com., 652 S.W.2d 358, 364, 1983 Tex. LEXIS 320, *15, 26 Tex. Sup. J. 395 (Tex. May 18, 1983) 7. After speaking to an attorney of which the Plaintiff at this time does not want to disclose, he stated that this case is about several attorneys who defrauded the court and the Plaintiffs. He told her that she has a civil conspiracy case against all of these lawyers. Again, the Plaintiff believes this may very well be true, since now she has been threatened over and over and again with the vexatious litigant case too. Right before this hearing on the vexatious litigant case all three attorneys that lied and suppressed evidence against her were present in the hearing room in a hearing right before her hearing. And, that is not an accident. It was intentional, the threats just continue. 8. With a case this serious and the amount of fraud that was committed it is important for this court to grant a rehearing since the issues are of great importance. Civil conspiracy has always been taken very seriously in the Texas courts. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 369, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, *1, 2012 WL 1071231 (Tex. App. Houston lst Dist. March 29, 2012 In a case alleging civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, appellant judgment creditor challenged a decision from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Texas, which entered judgment in favor of appellees, an accountant and two attorneys, and granted a motion to quiet title. After judgment was entered in the case originally on appeal, rehearing was sought. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, 2012 WL 1071231 (Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, HoustonMarch 29, 2012 Motions for rehearing were granted, an earlier opinion was withdrawn, and a new opinion was issued. The decision of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 369, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2512, *1, 2012 WL 1071231 (Tex. App. Houston lst Dist. March 29, 2012) Courts have granted a rehearing whenever there appears to be misconduct in a case. Any time there is negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, tortious interference, breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud the court is in favor of rehearing due to the nature of the case. Petitioner previous lessee sought review of an order from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, which reversed a directed verdict in its favor and affirmed a jury verdict in favor of respondent royalty owners in an action by the owners and respondent subsequent lessee for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, tortious interference, breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 250, 54 Tex. Sup. J. 761, 173 Oil & Gas Rep. 36 (Supreme Court of Texas April 1, 2011, Opinion Delivered The court found that there was fraud and sent the case back. “We affirm the court of appeals' judgment, for different reasons, reversing the trial court's directed verdict in favor of Exxon on Emerald's fraud claim. Finally, we remand the case to the court of appeals (1) to consider the royalty owners' claims for fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, tortious interference with economic opportunity, and breach of regulatory duty to plug wells properly, and (2) to remand Emerald's fraud claim to the trial court for further proceedings.” Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 221, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 250, *71-72, 54 Tex. Sup. J. 761, 173 Oi1& Gas Rep. 36 (Tex. Aprn 1,2011) 9. When there are issues that need to be investigated it is in the interest of justice to rehear the case. The Plaintiffs eyes have been opened to the public concern of the unethical behavior of lawyers. When a lawyer commits misconduct or unethical behavior it is the courts duty to continue to make decisions on how these actions should be handled. Whether allegations against a lawyer, labeled as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or some other cause of action, are actually claims for professional negligence or something else is a question of law to be determined by the court. Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d 229, 231, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *1, 2012 WL 5503891 (Tex. App. San Antonio November 14, 2012) There were serious issues that happened during this case and the Plaintiff believes that there is a case for malpractice her so in the interest of justice a rehearing would be advised. “A breach of fiduciary duty occurs when an attorney, among other things, subordinates his client's interest to his own, retains the client's funds, engages in self-dealing, improperly uses client confidences, fails to disclose conflicts of interest, or makes misrepresentations to achieve these ends. Unlike conflicts of interest between jointly represented clients, the types of conflicts of interest which could give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty are those in which the lawyer has a direct pecuniary interest in the litigation that is adverse to the client, and the attorney pursues his own interest to the client's detriment.” Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d 229, 231, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *1, 2012 WL 5503891 (Tex. App. San Antonio November 14, 2012) The trial court's judgment is reversed as to Riverwalk's negligence claim and its breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging that Akin Gump: (1) intentionally withheld tendering the defense of the Auburn lawsuit to the insurance carrier; and (2) overworked the file and charged excessive fees, and those claims are remanded to the trial court for fiirther proceeding. Riverwalk Cy Hotel Partners Ltd. V. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 391 S.W.3d 229, 239-240, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9366, *25, 2012 WL 5503891 (Tex. App. San Antonio November 14, 2012) The same has happened here the attorney has committed a breach of fiduciary duty when he subordinated his client's interest to his own, engaged in self-dealing, improperly uses client confidences, fails to disclose conflicts of interest, or makes misrepresentations to achieve these ends. And the attorney pursues his own interest to the client's detriment. 10. The Plaintiff believes that there is a genuine issue here and that more than likely she will be able to recover damages against this attorney. The court found that client was entitled to recover in negligence action against attorney, because there was no subjective good faith excuse for attorney negligence. Cosgrove v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 31, 32 Tex. Sup. J. 501 (Supreme Court of Texas June 28, 1989, Decided). She gave the attorney a second chance to fix this case and he told her he would and then appeared to disappear after that. WHEREFORE, these premises considered, the plaintiff request this court to grant her motion for rehearing, since she has excellent grounds, and such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate. genie)! 313%,? Denley Bishop Pro-Se 19me 315110? /s/ Denley Bishop 306 N. Street 12th Duncan, OK 73533 denlevbishon@vahoo.com CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE This is to certify that on May 18, 2022 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on cc: Brady Howell 7333 Valley View Lane Ste. 306 Dallas, TX 75240 httg://www.bdh- |aw.com Phone: 940-367-1031 Mark T. Zuniga Office of General Counsel Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services 2401 Ridgepoint Dr., Bldg. H-2, MC:Y-956 Austin, TX 78754 (512) 929-6565 Vicki L. Foster 4500 Mercantile Plaza, Ste. 300 Fort Worth, TX 76137 James D. Saint Texas Dept. Family and Protective Services 1200 E. Copeland Rd., Ste. 400 Arlington, TX 76011-4937 Denley Bishop 10 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I, Denley Bishop, certify that I have conferred with Counsel for the State, Brady Howells office for service, Mark T. Zuniga and he does not oppose this complaint. Vicki Foster appeared at the hearing and she told the judge this is very serious she did not believe he should remain on this case. In regards to my motion she did not respond, James Saint did not respond, Emma Guzman Ramon her disposition was unprofessional. _6Ma 63w— Denley Ann Bishop Plaintiff: Denley Ann Bishop Council: Shane Franklin Bishop 306 N. 12th Street Duncan, 0K 73533 Brady Howell 7333 Valley View Lane Ste. 306 Dallas, TX 75240 http://wwwbdh- law.com Phone: 940-367-1031 Respondant: Judge Janelle Havercamp James Saint 101 S. Dixon Street 5751 Kroger Dr. Ste. 239 Gainesville, TX 76240-4796 Keller, TX 76244 11 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope ID: 64647492 Status as of 5/19/2022 10:42 AM CST Associated Case Party: BRADY HOWELL Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brady Howell howell.brady@gmail.com 5/18/2022 11:57:25 PM SENT