PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Sunday, September 6, 1998

Key witness in O'Quinn disbarment case retracts statements

HOUSTON (AP) -- A key witness in the disbarment case against a Houston attorney and his associates has retracted statements that might have helped exonerate the group.

The disbarment lawsuit, filed in February, accuses John O'Quinn of funneling more than $100,000 to attorneys C. Benton Musslewhite and his son, Charles Musslewhite.

They are believed to have worked with O'Quinn associate Carl Shaw to hire nonattorneys to solicit families of victims of the July 1994 USAir crash.

O'Quinn, one of the nation's wealthiest lawyers, checked into the C.F. Menninger Clinic and Hospital in Topeka, Kan., this summer for treatment of alcohol abuse.

All defendants in the lawsuit have claimed the accusations are wrong and on Aug. 24, the group seemed to have found an unusual ally in lawyer Scott Carpenter. He heads the bar committee looking into the disbarment suit against the O'Quinn group.

On that date, Carpenter said the committee had not found sufficient reason to bring suit on some of the accusations.

State law requires a grievance committee composed of area lawyers, by a majority vote, find "just cause" before the state bar can file a disbarment suit in district court.

Presiding state District Judge John Rhea had ordered Carpenter to court to face questioning by O'Quinn's lawyers regarding which allegations the Texas State Bar panel found had no just cause.

Instead, Carpenter told the court Friday that he had spoken to two other members of the committee since his Aug. 24 statements, "and they reminded me it (his previous testimony) was incorrect."

Just before delivering his bombshell, Carpenter apologized "to the court, to the Supreme Court, to the respondents and to the attorneys."

O'Quinn and his associates were charged with 89 barratry-related counts.

The Texas State Bar has claimed the grievance committee took only one vote on all the charges. But Carpenter said nearly two weeks ago, that the panel took separate votes on specific accusations and he could reveal which ones the panel found lacking merit.

O'Quinn's attorneys were pleased by the testimony because they hoped to show that the grievance committee found no just cause on most of the serious allegations and, because of that, the case would have to be thrown out.

Although grievance committee proceedings are usually confidential, Rhea said he found the revelations troubling and would allow defense attorneys to question Carpenter on the specific votes.

Carpenter revealed that upon speaking with the committee members, he realized the panel never voted on specific allegations but only took "informal votes" before taking a final vote on the total charges.

O'Quinn's attorney David Berg then asked Carpenter to disclose the results of the "informal votes," but Carpenter declined, saying they were not "votes" but "informal polls." Rhea then ordered Carpenter to reveal what he had planned to say two weeks ago, but Carpenter said he did not recall what he would have said.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the grievance committee in this case took no written records of the polls or informal votes.

O'Quinn's lawyers claim the committee's failure to list allegations and findings on those is a violation of state law.

O'Quinn and Shaw have filed suit accusing the State Bar of not following due process laws in charging them with barratry. Rhea is also presiding over that case.

"The State Bar is very powerful and they will break every rule to get John O'Quinn," Berg said.

The State Bar has denied violating any procedures.

O'Quinn's attorneys declined to discuss what they plan to do next. The case is scheduled to go to trial Dec. 3.

In 1989, the Texas State Bar settled their 1987 disbarment lawsuit with O'Quinn. In that case, O'Quinn was accused of using runners to solicit cases. O'Quinn received a public reprimand, a $38,00 fine and 100 hours of community service.