Supreme Court of Texas Holds that Its Anti-Barratry Laws Do Not Apply to Conduct in Other States

Fishman Haygood LLP
Contact

On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed an appellate court’s decision in Pohl v. Cheatham. The case involves two Texas-based attorneys, Michael Pohl and Robert Ammons, who solicited out-of-state clients with personal injury cases. In a suit filed in Texas court by the out-of-state clients for civil barratry (the act of encouraging lawsuits to obtain a personal gain), the court declined to apply a provision in the Texas Government Code that allows clients to void legal service contracts obtained through barratry.

The Louisiana Case

While driving in Louisiana, the tread on LaDonna Cheatham’s tire separated. Her car crossed the median and collided with a school bus, killing Mrs. Cheatham, two of her children, and her nephew. A third child survived but sustained severe injuries.

Days later, Kenneth Talley visited the Cheatham home, encouraging them to hire Helping Hands Group, a company that would investigate a potential lawsuit. Additionally, Talley touted the legal services of attorneys Michael Pohl and Robert Ammons. Mr. Cheatham signed an agreement in exchange for $2,000. According to the plaintiffs, Helping Hands Financing, LLC, the company funding that payment, was run by Pohl’s wife.

Pohl then offered an additional $18,000 if the Cheathams hired his firm for representation. Mr. Cheatham and LaDonna’s mother signed contingency fee agreements. Both Pohl and Ammons later visited the Cheathams and asked them to sign new agreements consenting to Pohl’s association with Ammons, again offering money to Mr. Cheatham if he signed, which he ultimately did.

After Ammons filed a lawsuit in Louisiana against the car manufacturer, tire manufacturer, and others, the Cheathams received a letter warning that Pohl’s solicitation of them potentially violated Texas law. After discussions with Ammons’s firm, they signed a new agreement directly with Ammons after being advised that firing him could delay settlement. The defendants did in fact settle, at which time the Cheathams sued Pohl and Ammons for barratry in Texas.

In response, Ammons filed a petition for concursus (i.e., interpleader) in Louisiana and deposited the settlement and his claimed portion into the registry of the court. The Cheathams responded by asking the Texas court to order Ammons to turn over their portion of the settlement, which was denied. The Louisiana court ultimately ruled in Ammons’s favor, finding that he was entitled to his full share of fees, that the legal services contract was “valid and enforceable,” and that “no impropriety was committed by Ammons.”

The Arkansas Case

Arkansas resident David Reese was driving in Texas when his SUV’s tires separated, causing a roll-over that ejected him and resulted in his death.

Like the Cheathams, Mr. Reese’s wife was approached by Kirk Ladner at her Arkansas home the day after her husband’s funeral. She was presented with the same Helping Hands Group agreement, encouraged to investigate the accident, and offered money if she hired Pohl. Mrs. Reese agreed to retain Pohl and signed the contract.

As in the Louisiana case, Pohl and Ammons associated with other Arkansas lawyers and filed suit. Once the case was settled, the two attorneys both received attorney’s fees and expenses.

The Texas Barratry Lawsuit

Both the Cheathams and the Reeses allege that Talley and Ladner were part of a scheme led by Pohl and Ammons to pressure them into pursuing legal action. According to the families, Talley and Ladner worked for Precision Marketing Group, LLC, a company portraying itself as a marketing service but operating as “a pass through for barratry money.” Before the Cheathams hired Pohl, his firm entered a “Retention of Services Agreement” with Precision Marketing, agreeing to pay the company an hourly rate not exceeding 30% of Pohl’s net interest in the case. In return, Talley was promised a portion of the Cheathams’ settlement.

In 2017, the Cheathams sued Pohl, Ammons, their law firms, and Donalda Pohl for civil barratry under the Texas Government Code Section 82.0651(a), which “creates a statutory cause of action allowing a client to void a legal-services contract that was procured through conduct that violates either Texas Penal Code Section 38.12(a) or (b) or Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.03.” They also included claims for civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The following year, Mrs. Reese filed a petition to intervene, using the same representation and asserting identical claims, and the two families submitted an amended petition. Pohl and Ammons moved to strike Mrs. Reese’s intervention, which was denied by the trial court. Both defendants filed for summary judgment, arguing that—since the solicitation occurred in 2014—the two-year statute of limitations barred the claims. The trial court rejected the motions, ruling that a four-year statute of limitations period applies to claims involving a legal services contract.

Ammons and Pohl filed second motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted without providing explanation. The Cheathams and Mrs. Reese appealed, and the Texas First Court of Appeals reversed. Pohl and Ammons then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review, which they granted.

The Court’s Ruling

The Texas Supreme Court held that Section 82.0651 did not apply to the Cheatham and Reese claims, as the barratry complained of arose outside of Texas and the Texas Legislature did not intend for the statute to have effect beyond the state’s borders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas’s analysis of Section 82.0651 demonstrates some of the challenges to enforcement of the rules and statutes that regulate the practice of law as attorneys increasingly expand into other jurisdictions.

Written by:

Fishman Haygood LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Fishman Haygood LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide