Can a lawyer plead guilty to a traffic charge, pay the fine by check to the judge, then stop payment on the check after leaving?

Plain-English summary

A Texas attorney traveling in another state was cited for speeding late at night and required to appear at once before a justice of the peace. The judge offered three choices: plead guilty and have the fine set; plead not guilty and get an immediate trial with the officer testifying; or plead not guilty, post a bond, and have a jury trial. Believing he was innocent, that the distance from home made the choices unfair, and that the judge and officer were running a "speed trap," the attorney pleaded guilty, let the judge set the fine, gave the judge a check, and then placed a stop-payment on the check after returning home. The justice of the peace filed a grievance.

The Committee concluded the attorney's conduct as stated would violate Canons 1, 19, and 29. It added that the proper Grievance Committee, not the Committee, should determine the facts and the attorney's intent; the Committee's function is limited to interpreting the canons on hypothetical facts and it does not decide specific fact issues or the guilt or innocence of any attorney. The ruling was 8-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer stop payment on a check used to pay a court fine?

A: The Committee said the described conduct, pleading guilty, paying the fine by check, then stopping payment on it, would violate Canons 1, 19, and 29.

Q: Did the lawyer's belief that it was a "speed trap" change the result?

A: The Committee still found the conduct as stated would violate the canons. It treated the lawyer's belief about the unfairness of the situation as part of the hypothetical, not as a justification.

Q: Did the Committee decide whether this particular lawyer was guilty of misconduct?

A: No. It said the proper Grievance Committee, not the Committee, should determine the facts and intent; the Committee only interprets the canons on hypothetical facts.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 1, 19, and 29, provisions addressing a lawyer's duty to maintain respect for the courts and to deal honestly. The headnote labels the subject "Disrespect to Courts." The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct), which reaches dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.4 (misconduct), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 1, 19, and 29 (former canons)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 315: Advising a Criminal Client to Hide Temporarily Before Surrender
• TX Ethics Op. 310: Contingent Fee on the Hospital-Bill Portion of a Comp Settlement

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-302/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_302.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION PRESENTED

A Texas attorney traveling in another State received a traffic citation for speeding late in the evening and was requested to appear immediately before a Justice of the Peace, which he did. The Justice of the Peace gave the attorney three alternatives on the speeding ticket, i.e.: (1) A plea of guilty, at which time the Judge would set his fine; (2) a plea of not guilty, at which the Court would, at his request, grant an immediate trial and have the summoning officer appear to testify; (3) accept a plea of not guilty, take a bond from the attorney, set the matter for trial before a jury, if such pleased the attorney. The attorney, feeling that the situation was unfair due to the distance from his home that he was innocent of the charge of speeding, and believing that the Justice of the Peace and the traffic officer were working in collusion to create a so-called "speed trap" decided to plead guilty, let the Judge set his fine, give the Judge a check for the amount of the fine, and upon return to his home, place a "stop payment" on the check. The attorney did this, and a grievance was filed against him by the Justice of the Peace.

18 Baylor L. Rev. 367 (1966)

In the opinion of the committee, the attorney's conduct as stated would violate Canons 1, 19 and 29. However, the proper Grievance Committee, and not this committee, should determine the facts and the intent of the attorney. This committee's function is limited to interpretation of the Canons based on hypothetical fact situations, and it does not purport to decide specific fact issues or the guilt or innocence of any attorney. (8-0.)

DISRESPECT TO COURTS
It is unethical for a lawyer, who is brought before a J.P. in another State and who is charged with speeding, to give the J. P. a check for his fine and then place a Αstop payment" on the check.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 302 (1965)