Blog
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Special Rule of Privilege in Criminal Cases Provides Greater Protection to the Criminally Accused
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Ernest “Randy” Comeaux is currently an inmate serving six life sentences, without the benefit of parole, at the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. The facts of Comeaux crime were detailed by a Louisiana Court of Appeals in the matter of Smith v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department on April 24, 2004:
“From the mid-1960’s until the moid-1990’s, a number of rapes occurred in the southern portion of Lafayette Parish and adjoining parishes which could not be solved. In late 1995, the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) developed a theory that the rapes were connected and could have been committed by the same person. In 1997, DNA testing revealed that semen examples from six rape scenes matched. At that point, LPD began looking for a serial rapist.
“In September 1997, a task force was formed to attempt to solve these related rapes. The task included LPD, LPSD (Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department), Louisiana State Police, the FBI, and the University of Southwestern Louisiana, now University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Unsuccessful, the task force disbanded after approximately seven months. There were no new leads in the case until November 1998 when an anonymous caller suggested to LPD Captain James Craft that Randy Comeaux, a detective with the LPSD Juvenile Division, should be investigated for the rapes. DNA testing on the butt of a cigarette smoked by Mr. Comeaux revealed that his DNA matched semen samples from six rape scenes. After being arrested, Mr. Comeaux confessed to committing a number of rapes, including five rapes in Lafayette Parish.”
Comeaux was indicted and quickly pled guilty to six aggravated rape charges. The former detective was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences without the benefit of parole.
For purposes of this article, we will assume that prior to his arrest, Comeaux confided in two persons about his rapes: an attorney from whom he sought legal advice about the rapes and a Catholic priest to whom he confessed.
These were the only two people who knew Comeaux was the Lafayette serial rapist. One of them apparently violated Comeaux’s confidentially by anonymously calling Captain Craft and telling him that Comeaux should be investigated for the rapes. We will assume the anonymous call came from the lawyer, who was afraid that the rapes would continue until Comeaux was arrested.
The interesting question here is whether the confidence Comeaux shared with the attorney would have been protected byTexas’s law of privileges.
Texas Rule of Evidence 503(a)(1) defines a client as “a person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults with a lawyer with a viewing of obtaining professional legal services from that lawyer.”
Rule 503(a) (3) defines a lawyer as “a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation.”
Rule 503(a)(5) provides that “a communication is ‘confidential’ if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.”
Rule 503(b)(1) defined the essence of the attorney-client privilege as “a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client from a lawyer or a representative of the lawyer.”
Comeaux spoke to the attorney in confidence. He inquired as to what legal options were open to him. Of course, the first option suggested by the attorney was that Comeaux surrender himself to the authorities and the second suggested that he refrain from committing any future rapes. There was no formal, written legal contract between the attorney and Comeaux. There was only a shared confidence and legal advice between the two men. Does Rule 503 protect such a communication from disclosure, particularly to law enforcement?
The latest case from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) dealing with a Rule 503 issue was in 2007 inMixon v. State. The question before the CCA in that case was whether the Rule 503 attorney-client privilege “is established when a person consults with a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from him, even if the lawyer declines to represent that person at the end of the consultation. We hold that it does.”
The CCA did not decide but remanded the question to the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals, Houston, as to whether the privilege attached when a person is seeking legal services in furtherance of a crime.
In 2003 Danny Lee Mixon went to a trailer in Harris County where a couple resided. He stormed into the trailer after which he seriously wounded the female and killed the male resident. The privilege issue arose because Mixon worked at a Houston video store whose attorney was Peter Heckler. The attorney testified at Mixon’s trial. He stated he was “generally responsible” for the store but did not either manage or supervise it personally. Heckler testified that about midnight on May 6, 2003 he received a telephone call from one of the store’s clerks who told him the police had come by the store looking for Mixon. Heckler said he received a telephone call several hours later from Mixon but the attorney refused to talk to him because of the late hour.
The attorney met with Heckler later in the morning at which time they discussed the crime at length. Heckler agreed to represent Mixon until he learned that the attorney’s own gun may have been used in the crime at which time he declined to represent Mixon for that reason. Heckler testified Mixon did not want “the police to acquire either the handgun or the store videotape from the night of the murder.” Heckler, however, did not make it clear who suggested getting rid of the gun and videotape—him or Mixon. Heckler did pick up the gun from the store and two days later it was turned over to the police. The videotape was never found.
Prior to Heckler’s testimony during the punishment phase of Mixon’s trial, both the State and Mixon’s defense counsel requested that the trial court determine “whether the attorney-client privilege prohibited Heckler from testifying about [Mixon’s] discussion of the case with him. The trial judge conducted a hearing at which the judge listened to Heckler’s testimony and questioned him at length about what transpired between him and Mixon. The judge said he would allow Heckler to testify about Mixon indicating he asked the attorney to get rid of the gun.”
However, the CCA said, “the record shows that Heckler’s testimony on direct examination went beyond the court’s ruling. The trial court had to intervene, send the jury out, and admonish both the State and [Heckler] to focus the testimony on the limited question of whether appellant had asked Heckler to get rid of the gun. In spite of the court’s efforts to confine the witness’s testimony to this critical point, Heckler failed to unequivocally state, either before or even outside the presence of the jury, that appellant had asked him to get rid of the gun. The trial court did not pursue the matter any further …”
The CCA agreed to consider two issues: 1) whether the attorney-client privilege attaches only after the lawyer agrees to render professional service for a client; and 2) whether the attorney-client privilege attaches when a person consults with a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the attorney, even if the attorney ultimately declines to represent that person. The CCA did not waste time getting to the heart of the issue:
“The use of the words ‘with a view to obtaining profession legal services’ in the definition of ‘client,’ at the beginning of [Rule 503], clearly indicates that the protection of the attorney-client privilege is available to those persons who had hired the lawyer as those still seeking to do so. Moreover, there is nothing in Rule 503(b) (2), the ‘Special rule of privilege in criminal cases’ quoted above, to indicate a modification of that definition of ‘client.’”
The State tried to manipulate the definition of client, but the CCA was not having any truck with that argument—essentially that Mixon “should not be allowed to benefit from the attorney-client privilege because no attorney-client relationship was established between Heckler and appellant, and that such a relationship needs to be established before the attorney-client privilege is allowed.”
The CCA continued: “In making this argument, the State appears to be viewing the use of the phrase ‘attorney-client relationship’ in Rule 503(b)(2) as a special requirement in criminal cases, restricting the availability of the privilege only to cases where the lawyer had already agreed to represent the client. But there is nothing in the rule itself to support this interpretation. Moreover, if that phrase were in fact meant to be such a special requirement in criminal cases, it would have been defined in Rule 503(a), the section on definitions – at the very least to indicate when such relationship began and ended, so that the courts could determine the period in which the privilege applied. In addition, it is important to note that the phrase ‘attorney-client’ does not appear anywhere in the rule except in 503(b) (2), the ‘Special rule of privileges in criminal cases.’
Most notably, it does not even appear in Rule 503(b) (1), outlining the general rule of privilege. Thus, if we were to follow the State’s interpretation – viewing the phrase as a special restriction on the availability of the privilege in criminal cases – we would have to conclude that the rule was intended to provide lesser protection to persons accused of criminal offenses than those seeking a lawyer’s help in non-criminal matters. But if anything, the use of the words ‘any other fact’ in Rule 503(b) (2), the ‘Special rule of privilege in criminal cases,’ indicates the intent to provide greater, not lesser, protection to the criminally accused.”
Rule 503(d) listsfive exceptionsto which the attorney-client privilege does not attach. Exception (1) [Furtherance of Crime or Fraud] was an issue in theMixoncase: “If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.” The CCA remanded theMixoncase for the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to address this question. The appeals court found:
“ … Whether the exception [crime or fraud] applies turns on the client’s knowledge,” that the attorney’s services will be used to further the activity in question. “The crime-fraud exception only applies to communication concerning future acts and does not apply where a client is seeking advice relating to crimes already committed … (court distinguishes between situation where the client reveals information to an attorney regarding the location of a kidnapping victim without seeking the attorney’s assistance for any purpose beyond defense of the criminal charges and a situation where the client sought the attorney’s help to move the victim’s body).”
The appeals court pointed out that the central question inMixonwas whether Mixon was seeking Heckler’s representation for the murder or whether he seeking Heckler’s assistance in destroying the murder weapon. The appeals court found that Mixon was doing the latter—seeking Heckler’s assistance to destroy or withhold the murder weapon.
Mixonmakes it clear that if the attorney in the Comeaux hypothetical anonymously called the police, he violated the attorney-client privilege. Comeaux only disclosed that he had committed the rape and sought advice as to what his options were; he did not ask the attorney to assist him in facilitating future rapes. This is the case even if the attorney believed that Comeaux would commit future rapes in the future. In summary, what a criminal suspect has done in the past is protected by the attorney-client privilege—not what he plans to do.
The Historical Conflict Surrounding the Privilege
There has been an ongoing conflict, most often subtle, in the house of our legal system about whether the attorney-client privilege should be absolute, as indicated inMixon, or qualified.Jeremy Bentham, the fame jurist and philosopher, believed the primary purpose of a legal system is to seek and establish the truth—a position that has little tolerance for the attorney-client privilege as pointed out by University of California Law Professor Edward J. Inwinkeiried in aPittsburgh Law Reviewarticle. On the other hand, one of the most recognized evidentiary legal scholars in history, Dean John Henry Wigmore, believed the privilege was absolute and sacred—although he subscribed to the principle that the privilege could be waived. The U.S.
Supreme Court in the late 1980s followed Wigmore’s privilege position in two cases:Jaffee v. Redmond(recognized the psychotherapist privilege as absolute) andSwidler & Berlin v. United States(recognized attorney-client privilege as absolute).
As Professor Inwinkeiried pointed out, Wigmore believed that privileges, once recognized, should be absolute because they serve the interest of society; namely, “the promotion of important social relations in which confidentiality is ‘essential.’” This is particularly true with the attorney-client privilege, the oldest of all privileges. Wigmore frequently referred to a nineteenth century decision that said “deprived of” the attorney-client privilege, “a man would never venture to consult any skillful [attorney], or would only dare to tell his counselor half his case.”
We support the absolutism of the attorney-client privilege as a sacred trust between the provider of legal assistance and the subscriber of legal assistance. A client must nearly always “bare his soul” to the attorney in order to receive the kind of effective representation needed to address the legal problem facing the client. The two share the most personal of confidences. As an eighteenth century case often cited by Wigmore put it: “there would be an entire stop to [legal] business; nobody would trust an attorney with the state of his affairs.
Still, there are those, as noted by Professor Inwinkeiried, who believe the attorney-client privilege should be “qualified,” not absolute. They prefer the early common law principle, as advanced by the State inMixon, that the privilege attaches only after the attorney has commenced litigation for the client. Professor Inwinkeiried pointed to three studies which appear to support a “qualified” privilege. The first was a study published in 1962 n theYale Law Journal. The researchers provided questionnaires to 108 persons, of which one-third believed a judge could order an attorney to disclose confidential attorney-client information. Professor Inwinkeiried said this finding suggested these individuals “would still use an attorney’s services if the privilege [was] actually classified as qualified rather than absolute.
Intrigued by what he believed the Yale-published study revealed (“a substantial majority of laypersons would continue to use lawyers even if secrecy were limited), Professor Fred Zachariasdecided to conduct his own study into the matter. He interviewed 105 laypersons in Tompkins County, New York, and while approximately half said they would withhold information from attorneys if there was no privilege of confidentiality, they also indicated they would consult with attorneys if the privilege of confidentiality was limited. The Zacharias study supported the Yale-published study by finding that 40 to 60 percent of those interviewed believed an attorney has the discretion to disclose confidential communications without their permission.
The third study cited by Professor Inwinkeiried was conducted by Professor Vincent Alexander during his study for his Doctor of Science Law Degree. Conducted in the 1980s, Professor Alexander’s study, which focused on corporate attorney-client privilege, involved interviews with corporate executives in Manhattan. These executives said their decisions to convey confidential information to “in-house” counsel depended not on their belief that the privilege shielded those communications from disclosure but rather on “their trust of the individual attorney.” Professor Inwinkeiried assessed the findings of this study:
“After reviewing his data, Professor Alexander found that in the corporate setting, the operation of the privilege is over inclusive; it applies to many communications that would be made even if there were no privilege. The data strongly suggested that in the corporate context, the scope of the privilege is unduly broad. The data raised the question of whether any privilege should attach to communications between business executives and their in-house counsel. The data appeared to undermine the assumption that absolute privilege is necessary. Professor Alexander concluded that it would work little damage on the free flow of corporate attorney-client communications if the privilege were converted into a qualified one, capable of being overridden in exceptional cases of compelling need.”
While some in the legal community may have been impressed enough with these studies to suggest that the attorney-client privilege should be limited or qualified, the U.S. Supreme Court certainly was not. In 1981 the court inUpjohn Co. v. United Statesheld that the moment the attorney and layperson confide, the layperson must be convinced, “with some degree of certainty,” that his/her confidential communications “will be protected.” And there is sound basis for this position which is grounded in both public policy and evidentiary law. As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated inSwindler & Berlin, “the loss of evidence is more apparent than real,” but “without the privilege, the client may not have made such communications (beneficial to evidentiary law) in the first place.”
Professor Melanie Lewis, writing a 2000 edition of theWisconsin Law Review, was more direct: “in a perfect world, the privilege would shield no evidence. Privilege generates the communication that the privilege protects. Eliminate the privilege, and the communication disappears … the privilege would protect … statements that would not otherwise have been made.” As one federal court expressed it: absolute privilege results “in little evidentiary detriment where the evidence lost would simply never come into being if the privilege did not exist.”
And that is precisely the core for absolute attorney-client privilege: no rational client facing criminal investigation would provide an attorney—one either consulted or retained—with information implicating herself in criminal wrongdoing. It is imperative that an attorney know the level of criminal exposure his client faces. An investigation for possible defenses typically cannot begin until the client is forthcoming about the facts surrounding the case and her involvement in any potential criminal wrongdoing—and that will be achieved only if the client believes his privileged communications with the attorney are absolutely protected from disclosure.
Conclusion
First, we have no way of knowing if Comeaux spoke to an attorney; and, second, if he did, whether the attorney was the person who anonymously tipped the police about Comeaux’s involvement in the rapes. But the hypothetical does present a real-life example of a difficult professional conflict, one that an experienced criminal defense lawyer will undoubtedly, at some point in their career, be forced to confront.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Rule 503, Lawyer-Client Privilege, states in relevant part:
A “client” is a person who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from that lawyer.
General Rule of Privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client:(1) between the client and the client’s lawyer…
Special rule of privilege in criminal cases. In criminal cases, a client has a privilege to prevent the lawyer or lawyer’s representative from disclosing any other fact which came to the knowledge of the lawyer or lawyer’s representative by reason of the attorney-client relationship.
Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule:
(1)Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
