Texas AG Turned to Outside ‘Fixing’ Firm as Office Reeled

Days after a simmering office dispute involving his current and former deputies splashed into public view, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office hired an Austin firm that touted its expertise in “fixing sensitive problems.”

Weisbart Springer Storm Hatchitt LLP’s June 30 contract called for it to advise on “development and compliance with OAG policies and procedures,” according to a copy of the agreement obtained by Bloomberg Law through a public records request. For the next two months, Paxton’s office paid it more than $25,000.

Unlike seven other contracts Paxton’s office engaged in with outside counsel this year, the contract didn’t provide specific expectations, name an opposing party, or describe a dispute. The invoices show work on litigation that wasn’t laid out in the engagement, and the tasks are heavily redacted in invoices provided to Bloomberg Law.

Paxton’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment on the firm’s retention. Weisbart Springer didn’t respond to questions about the work it did.

Weisbart Springer is a firm of 10 lawyers that specializes in complex litigation as well as sensitive problems, according to its website. Its attorneys “have successfully extricated individuals and companies from seemingly impossible situations, restored the status quo, and helped to allow individuals to move past traumatic business and personal chapters of their lives,” the site says.

At the time of the engagement, Paxton’s office was dealing with two bombshell lawsuits involving high-ranking lawyers who were once aligned as members of his leadership team. One was a claim by former solicitor general Judd Stone that Paxton’s first assistant, Brent Webster, had slandered him.

In the other, an executive assistant asserted she’d been harassed by Stone and former division head Christopher Hilton while the three of them prepared to defend Paxton in his 2023 impeachment trial in the Texas Senate. The lawsuit included an email from Webster that said he had been threatened by Stone to the point that he was considering security for his family based on comments Stone made.

In their lawsuit, Stone and Hilton said Webster retaliated against them by feeding the email to the assistant to use in hers. Webster did this, they allege, because they launched a corruption investigation into him through a public records request to the AG’s office. Separately, Stone and Hilton made a complaint to the state bar the same week also accusing Webster of using taxpayer money to fund his legal fees in a federal criminal bribery investigation into Paxton and tampering with witnesses in Paxton’s impeachment trial. Neither Paxton nor Webster was charged in the criminal probe.

Weisbart Springer’s legal work isn’t disclosed in either of the cases’ court filings. Its connection to the Stone-Webster feud is revealed through a pay invoice that showed a paralegal reviewed complaints in the cases. Otherwise, it’s impossible to decipher what the firm did for most of the 50 hours it billed.

Some references are general, broadly revealing preparation and discussions with counsel. One says partner Julie Springer gave “advice regarding litigation.” Another says Springer reviewed an opinion from Paxton’s Open Records Division “to understand same and” before the rest of the entry is redacted.

The invoices are titled “Attorney General/Investigation.”

In all, the firm billed the state $25,824 for two months of work ending in late August.

Transparency

The contract’s instruction to help develop policies “could mean anything so therefore it means nothing at all,” said Joseph Larsen, board member of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, who noted that it’s impossible to tell from the engagement what the firm was hired to do.

Larsen, of Gregor Wynne Arney, is one of three lawyers who specialize in Texas government ethics and transparency who said they are struck by the lack of specificity in the contract, which called for the firm’s attorneys to bill $525 per hour. That hourly rate is on the low end of outside contracts from Paxton’s office. Some pay up to $3,780 in contingency for taking on and beating major pharmaceutical and technology companies.

In addition to not responding to requests for comment, Paxton’s office declined to provide a copy of its policy on contracting with outside law firms citing confidential internal communications between agency attorneys.

“Policies are not normally attorney-client privileged,” Larsen said. “They’re super public.”

The contract “would be better from a policy standpoint if it were more specific,” said James Hemphill, an open government lawyer with Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody.

Springer, who signed the contract on behalf of the firm, has ties to Paxton going back for more than a decade: In 2014, she served on his transition team when he was first elected attorney general after contributing $5,000 to his campaign.

In addition to Springer, Geoff Weisbart, another partner, performed legal services as part of the contract. The attorneys were assisted by Jan Blair, a paralegal who billed $225 an hour.

On Aug. 27, Blair spent a half hour to “research and review litigation pleadings” to prepare materials for Springer’s review—though Springer never billed for the review of those materials. The case isn’t specified.

It was the final entry from the firm before the contract ended a few days later on Aug. 31.

“It feels weird that the statement invoice of what was being paid for is vastly different than what was put on the description of legal services,” said Andrew Cates, an ethics attorney in Texas. “Somebody should answer for why those are so different.”