Fees And Compensation

School district's contract for legal services, under Texas Supreme Court test, would violate Texas Constitution article III, section 52(a) if (1) the expenditure's predominant purpose does not accomplish a public purpose, but instead benefits private parties; (2) sufficient control over the expenditure is not retained to ensure that the public purpose is accomplished; (3) the school district does not receive a return benefit; and (4) the expenditure fails to provide a clear public benefit in return.|Texas Disciplinary Rules for Professional Conduct, to the extent that circumstances forming the basis for an alleged violation of the, suggest that an expenditure does not comport with the requirements of Texas Constitution article III, section 52(a), a court would rely on the Texas Supreme Court test to make that determination. However, it is unlikely that a court would consider conduct subsequent to a contract's execution in determining whether the contract itself violates article III, section 52(a)|Whether a public purpose under Texas Constitution article III, section 52(a) is served by a particular expenditure raises fact questions that cannot be answered in an attorney general opinion and would be a decision for the school district in the first instance, subject to judicial review.|Texas Constitution article III, section 52(a), in utilizing the Texas Supreme Court test to evaluate public expenditures under, Texas courts have suggested that (1) an incidental benefit to individual trustees does not invalidate the expenditure if the contract is predominantly for the direct accomplishment of a legitimate public purpose of the school district; (2) the principal constitutional concern regarding control measures is not who is implementing them but whether such controls are put into place to begin with; and (3) what constitutes an adequate return benefit depends on a variety of specific circumstances but is called into doubt if there is such a gross disparity in the relative values exchanged as to show unconscionability, bad faith, or fraud.||Article III, section 52(a), whether a public purpose under Texas Constitution article III, section 52(a) is served by a particular expenditure raises fact questions that cannot be answered in an attorney general opinion and would be a decision for the school district in the first instance, subject to judicial review.|Article III, section 52(a), Texas Constitution, under Texas Supreme Court test, a school district's contract for legal services would violate if (1) the expenditure's predominant purpose does not accomplish a public purpose, but instead benefits private parties; (2) sufficient control over the expenditure is not retained to ensure that the public purpose is accomplished; (3) the school district does not receive a return benefit; and (4) the expenditure fails to provide a clear public benefit in return.|Article III, section 52(a), to the extent that circumstances forming the basis for an alleged violation of theTexas Disciplinary Rules for Professional Conduct suggest that an expenditure does not comport with the requirements of, a court would rely on the Texas Supreme Court test to make that determination. However, it is unlikely that a court would consider conduct subsequent to a contract's execution in determining whether the contract itself violates article III, section 52(a).

County attorney is not entitled to receive extra compensation for representing State in criminal matter in county's district court at request of district attorney|Compensation - county attorney is not entitled to receive extra compensation for representing State in criminal matter in county's district court at request of district attorney

Fees of attorney ad litem appointed for a parent under Family Code section 107.013, court may not order Department to pay|Suit to terminate parent-child relationship; payment of fees for parent's attorney ad litem|Attorney ad litem appointed for a parent in termination suit, payment of fees by county

Amicus attorney, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Attorney ad litem, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Guardian ad litem, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Compensation of appointed amicus attorney, attorney ad litem, guardian ad litem, private suit affecting parent-child relationship, indigent parents|Appointment, amicus attorney, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Appointment, attorney ad litem, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Appointment, guardian ad litem, indigent client, private suit affecting parent-child relationship|Indigence, compensation of appointed amicus attorney, attorney ad litem, guardian ad litem

Appointment of counsel in criminal cases for non-indigent defendants

Hospital district not authorized to reimburse employee for legal expenses (Overruled by Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-488 (1998) to extent of conflict)|Representation of defendant in criminal case, district and county attorneys precluded from (Overruled by Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-488 (1998) to extent of conflict)|Legal counsel, hospital district may employ to represent district and, if interest of district is at stake, its officers and employees (Overruled by Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-488 (1998) to extent of conflict)

Attorneys fees, county may not reimburse private litigants for costs in suit involving county road right-of-way|County may not reimburse private litigants for costs in suit involving county road right-of-way

Election contest, county may not reimburse sheriff for legal fees incurred in defending|Contested election, county may not reimburse sheriff for legal fees

Attorney fees, common law authorizes governmental body to reimburse officer's or employee's in certain circumstances|Chief appraiser's attorney fees, board of directors of appraisal district may reimburse if authorized to do so by statute or under the common law|Chief appraiser prosecuted for alleged failure to notify landowners of change of use, appraisal district may reimburse attorney fees under common law if board makes certain determinations|Attorney fees of chief appraiser prosecuted for alleged failure to notify landowners of change of use, district may reimburse under common law if board makes certain determinations

Legal fees of district judge, state not obligated to pay; county may pay if county interests are at stake|Legal fees of district judge, county may pay if county interests are at stake|District judge, state not required to pay for defense of judge who retains private counsel without prior approval of Attorney General

Costs of court may be included in income-withholding order if costs necessarily incurred to enforce existing child support obligation|Income withholding, statute constitutionally may permit court to include attorney's fees in income-withholding order if fees necessarily incurred to enforce existing child support obligation|Common meaning, we must construe words used consistently with their|Income withholding order, statute may permit court to include attorney's fees, court costs, and other costs necessarily incurred to enforce existing child support order

Delinquent taxes, attorney under contract with county to collect delinquent taxes for compensation under section 33.07 of Tax Code may not donate part of compensation to taxing unit|Donations, statutory authority of county to accept|Attorney under contract with county to collect delinquent taxes for compensation under section 33.07 of Tax Code may not donate part of compensation to county|Delinquent taxes, attorney who contracts to collect under section 6.30 of Tax Code may not donate part of compensation under section 33.07 of Tax Code to taxing unit

Attorney's fees in action to revoke nursing home's license, State Office of Administrative Hearings has no authority to order Department of Human Services to pay|Attorney's fees, the State Office of Administrative Hearings has no authority to require Department to pay in action to revoke nursing home's license|Attorney's fees, State Office of Administrative Hearings has no authority to order Department of Human Services to pay in action to revoke nursing home's license|Expenses of discovery|Include

Legal fees|Pay|Legal fee, bail bond surety is prohibited from collecting legal fee from a client and remitting it to an attorney

Prevailing party|Term "prevailing party," for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees in employment discrimination cases under state law has same meaning as under federal law because state law was modeled upon federal law|Term "prevailing party," for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees in employment discrimination cases under state law has same meaning as under federal law

Workers' compensation cases, rule limiting fees to certain percentage of claimant's recovery is unreasonable as a matter of law|Evidence of representation and disbursement, Industrial Accident Board may require in workers' compensation cases|Attorney's fees, rule limiting to certain percentage of claimant's recovery is unreasonable as a matter of law|Evidence of representation and disbursement of attorney's fees, Industrial Accident Board may require|Attorney's fees in workers' compensation cases, rule limiting to certain percentage of claimant's recovery is unreasonable as a matter of law|Evidence of representation and disbursement of attorney's fees, Board may require in workers' compensation cases