Filed: 5/26/2022 102 PRA ty, Texas By Katrina Shelby Deputy Envelope (0: 64845058. CAUSE NO, _471-02574-2022 COMMISSION FOR LAWYER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DISCIPLINE v. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS WARREN KENNETH PAXTON, JR. 202006564; 202006566; 202101148; 202101678; 202104762 JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORIGINAL DI: PI TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW the Commission ror LawyER DISCIPLINE, Petitioner, and would respectfully show the following i DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Pursuant to Rule 190.1 and 190.3, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner asserts discovery in this case is to be conducted under Discovery Control Plan Level 2-by Rule, IL PARTIES The Petitioner is the COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, a standing committee of the State Bar of Texas. Respondent, Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., State Bar Number 15649200 (Respondent), is an attomey licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and is a member of the State Bar of Texas. Respondent has his principal place of practice in Collin County, Texas, and may be served with citation in McKinney, Collin County, Texas, Disciptnary Petition CFLD y, Pasion (Cohen, Chew: Moran, VanHletinga, Raer) Page I of PagesUL JURISDICTION AND VENUE, The cause of action and the relief sought in this case are within the jurisdictional requirements of this Honorable Court. Venue of this case is proper in Collin County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 3.03, because Collin County is the county of the Respondent's principal place of practice. Petitioner requests an active judge whose district does not include Collin County, Texas, be assigned to preside in this case. Vv. |ONAL MISCONDUCT PROFE! Petitioner brings this disciplinary action pursuant to the State Bar Act, Tex. Govt, Code Ann, §81.001 ef seq., the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, The complaints, which initiated these proceedings, were filed by Kevin Moran on December 11, 2020, Justice David W. Wellington Chew on December 11, 2020, Neil Kay Cohen on February 12, 2021, Brynne VanHettinga on March 11, 2021, and Gershon Gary Ratner on July 27, 2021. ‘The acts and omissions of Respondent, as hereinafter alleged, constitute professional misconduct, v. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about December 7, 2020, Respondent filed Case No. 220155, styled: State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. Respondent's pleadings included requests for multiple injunctions against the Defendant States and a finding that the Defendant States violated federal Disciplinary Petition CEL. Pasion (Cohen, Chen, Moran, VanHertbga, Ratner) Page 2 of Pageselection laws. Specifically, these requests asked the United States Supreme Court to enjoin “Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors, to the Electoral College,” and sought to prevent the Defendant States fiom “meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §5, 3 U.S.C. §7, or applicable law pending further order...” Respondent's pleadings requesting this extraordinary relief misrepresented to the United States Supreme Court that an “outcome-determinative” number of votes in each Defendant State supported Respondent's pleadings and injunction requests. Respondent made representations in his pleadings that: 1) an outcome determinative number of votes were tied to unregistered voters; 2) votes were switched by a glitch with Dominion voting machines; 3) state actors \constitutionally revised their state’s election statutes;” and 4) “illegal votes” had been cast that affected the outcome of the election. Respondent's representations were dishonest. His allegations were not supported by any charge, indictment, judicial finding, and/or credible or admissible evidence, and failed to disclose to the Court that some of his representations and allegations had already been adjudicated and/or dismissed in a court of law. In addition, Respondent misrepresented that the State of Texas had “uncovered substantial evidence... that raises serious doubts as to the integrity of the election process in Defendant States,” and had standing to bring these claims before the United States Supreme Court As a result of Respondent's actions, Defendant States were required to expend time, money, and resources to respond to the misrepresentations and false statements contained in these pleadings and injunction requests even though they had previously certified their presidential electors based on the election results prior to the filing of Respondent's pleadings. Disciplinary Petition CELD . Pasion (Coben, Chew, Moran, VanHleuinga, Rainer) Page 3 of PagesVI. SCIPLINARY RUL| OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED The facts alleged herein constitute a violation of the following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct: 8.04(a)(3)__A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud. deceit. or mistepresentation PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that a judgment of professional misconduct be entered against Respondent, and that this Honorable Court determine and impose an appropriate sanction, including an order that Respondent pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of court and all expenses associated with this proceeding, Petitioner further prays for such other and additional relief, general or specific, at law or in equity, to which it may show itself entitled. Respectfully submitted, Seana Willing Chief Disciplinary Counsel Royce Lemoine Deputy Counsel for Administration! Austin Regional Counsel Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel STATE BAR OF TEXAS P.O. Box 12487, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2487 Telephone: 512.427.1350 Facsimile: 512.427.4167 Email: rlemoine@texasber.com Amanda M. Kates Assistant Disciplinary Counsel State Bar Card No. 24075987 Disciplinary Peston CELD v. Pasion (Coben, Chew, Moran, VanHeuinga, Ratner) Page # of 4 Pages