The legal range war between Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty and the Williamson County Commissioners Court – and more specifically, County Judge Dan A. Gattis – heated up over the winter holidays, and motions are flying back and forth in Duty’s lawsuit against Gattis. Officially, Duty filed a “removal” lawsuit against Gattis on Dec. 20, charging a misappropriation of county funds in hiring outside law firms unnecessarily and without required authorization by the Commissioners Court. Duty’s pleadings, presented to a Williamson County district court in a civil lawsuit, ask that the court suspend Gattis until the lawsuit is heard and remove Gattis (should the suit be successful) from his position as county judge, on five counts of “incompetence and official misconduct” – all involving the unauthorized hiring of outside counsel.
Duty has been feuding with the WilCo commissioners for some months over their hiring of outside counsel (instead of relying on the elected county attorney, i.e., Duty), supposedly because they’ve “lost faith” in her judgment; her separate lawsuit against commissioners, filed in September, remains pending. The suit against Gattis concerns not only hiring unauthorized counsel for various matters but, most sensationally, hiring lawyers to defend Judge Don Higginbotham – a personal friend of Gattis – against sexual harassment charges brought by two county employees (a federal lawsuit is pending against Higginbotham). Duty charges that Gattis and the commissioners have made a habit of spending money on outside lawyers without discussion or a vote, authorizing the payments later, and then attempting to conceal or redact the paperwork to effectively backdate the transactions.
At least some of Duty’s claims against Gattis suggest potential criminal charges, and Duty apparently contemplated a criminal complaint, according to reports in the online Austin Bulldog, which has been covering the case in recent weeks. But Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley declined to pursue criminal charges, and Duty instead filed a lawsuit on Dec. 22. Last week, Gattis’ attorney, Martha Dickie, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that her client’s alleged offenses occurred prior to his November re-election, and thus have been effectively rendered moot under Texas law; Duty’s attorney, Jason Nassour, filed a response noting that voters had no knowledge of the offenses prior to Nov. 2, and therefore were unable to render judgment by voting.
Gattis has described Duty’s charges as a personal vendetta and waste of public time and money (he’s reportedly paying for his own defense). Nassour told the Bulldog: “Do we think Judge Gattis is a hardened felon and should go to jail? No. But should a jury be able to decide if what he does rises to incompetence or official misconduct? Yes they should.”
This article appears in January 14 • 2011.
