|
PUBLIC NOTICE HIDALGO COUNTY DD #1 May 19, 2020 9:45 A.M. |
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE HIDALGO COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 IN CONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT
(Pursuant to Section 2254.1036 of the Government)
(Pursuant to Section 2254.1036 of the Government)
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Directors of the Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 ("HCDD1") will be conducting a meeting by videoconference or telephone on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 9:45 a.m. at the Hidalgo County Commissioners Courtroom located in the Hidalgo County Courthouse Annex III, 100 E. Cano, Edinburg, Texas. The purpose of the meeting is to consider and take action on all items on the posted agenda pursuant to Texas Government Code Chapter 551; this includes but is not limited to the approval of a legal services contract on a contingency fee basis with the law firm of Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, P.C. (the "Firm"), to perform all legal services necessary to prosecute certain civil litigation claims on behalf of HCDD1.
The HCDD1 is considering this matter for the following reasons:
A. The Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 ("HCDD1") has identified claims that exist against defendants in HCDD1 v. Integ Corporation et al, Cause No. C-0373-17-E, in the 275th District Court pending in Hidalgo County as well as claims against former legal counsel. It is alleged that each of the adverse parties has caused damages to the HCDD1.
The objective in engaging the Firm in a professional services contract for the prosecution of the claims is to obtain a complete financial recovery for the HCDD1, and doing so under a contingency fee arrangement is believed to be the most cost-effective manner. See Govt. Code §2254.1036(a)(1)(A).
B. The HCDD1 believes that the Firm possess the competency, qualifications, and experience necessary to fulfill this contract as required by Government Code § 2254.1036(1)(B). Firm Shareholder David N. Calvillo will serve as the lead trial counsel and Firm Shareholder Justice David M. Medina as lead appellate counsel; both will be part of the litigation team from inception. The Firm's lead trial counsel for the matter is a shareholder in the Firm and is certified as a specialist in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Calvillo has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the "Texas Super Lawyers" list published by an industry publication for 13 consecutive years. David M. Medina is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas having authored nearly 100 Opinions that served as the predominant statement of Texas law. Justice Medina also served as a State District Judge and as General Counsel to the Governor of the State of Texas. Both are experienced in commercial litigation matters, including breach of contract and other business torts. The Firm enjoys a national reputation as a full-service business law firm based in in Houston with offices in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and San Antonio. See Govt. Code §2254.1036(a)(1)(B).
C. The Firm responded to a request for qualifications for legal services that was solicited by the HCDD1. Although the Firm has not previously had a relationship with the HCDD1, the Firm attorneys have extensive experience in practicing law in Hidalgo County, Texas. Lead trial counsel for the Firm is a native of the Rio Grande Valley, who practiced the majority of his legal career based in Hidalgo County. He has successfully represented parties and obtained favorable verdicts in jury trials in Hidalgo County. Lead appellate has been selected as its outside of choice by governmental units from throughout the State of Texas. The Firm's attorneys have represented scores of Hidalgo County and Rio Grande Valley citizens in a variety of different matters through the Firm's history. §2254.1036(a)(1)(C).
D. The claims alleged by HCDD1 are contested by the adverse parties, thus requiring the pursuit of claims in litigation. The HCDD1 does not have an inhouse legal department and the personnel of the HCDD1 cannot perform legal services. In addition, the support personnel of the HCDD1 cannot pursue the claims due to the respective cost, infrastructure and technology needed to perform these services. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(D).
E. The expected costs of a traditional hourly rate engagement with a law firm and the anticipated litigation costs make a contingency fee contract the best budgetary alternative for the HCDD1 and its taxpayers. The HCDD1 expects two or more experts to testify on behalf of HCDD1's position in the case. Those experts will seek compensation on an hourly basis; they cannot provide their opinions nor work on a contingency basis. Additionally, there are numerous depositions of fact witnesses that need to be conducted; deposition costs include a court reporter and videographer. These litigation costs could exceed one hundred thousand dollars.
The anticipated fees of retaining a law firm on a traditional hourly basis to pursue the contested claims could easily exceed several hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the amount of time needed to be devoted to research, writing, court appearances, discovery, trial/witness preparation and trial. Moreover, with a traditional engagement contract, the HCDD1 would have to finance the litigation costs. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(E).
F. It is believed that a contingency fee contract for the pursuit of the claims is in the best interest of the HCDD1. Under the contingent fee contract the HCDD1 is entitled to top quality legal representation at no cost unless there is a recovery. In the event of a recovery, the Firm will be reimbursed expenses and paid a percentage of the recovery regardless the number of hours the Firm spends working on the case. Furthermore, HCDD1 will only be responsible for paying the Firm from amounts recovered and from no other source. As such, the Firm is incentivized to obtain a full and fair recovery on behalf of the HCDD1. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(F).
The HCDD1 is considering this matter for the following reasons:
A. The Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 ("HCDD1") has identified claims that exist against defendants in HCDD1 v. Integ Corporation et al, Cause No. C-0373-17-E, in the 275th District Court pending in Hidalgo County as well as claims against former legal counsel. It is alleged that each of the adverse parties has caused damages to the HCDD1.
The objective in engaging the Firm in a professional services contract for the prosecution of the claims is to obtain a complete financial recovery for the HCDD1, and doing so under a contingency fee arrangement is believed to be the most cost-effective manner. See Govt. Code §2254.1036(a)(1)(A).
B. The HCDD1 believes that the Firm possess the competency, qualifications, and experience necessary to fulfill this contract as required by Government Code § 2254.1036(1)(B). Firm Shareholder David N. Calvillo will serve as the lead trial counsel and Firm Shareholder Justice David M. Medina as lead appellate counsel; both will be part of the litigation team from inception. The Firm's lead trial counsel for the matter is a shareholder in the Firm and is certified as a specialist in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Calvillo has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the "Texas Super Lawyers" list published by an industry publication for 13 consecutive years. David M. Medina is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas having authored nearly 100 Opinions that served as the predominant statement of Texas law. Justice Medina also served as a State District Judge and as General Counsel to the Governor of the State of Texas. Both are experienced in commercial litigation matters, including breach of contract and other business torts. The Firm enjoys a national reputation as a full-service business law firm based in in Houston with offices in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and San Antonio. See Govt. Code §2254.1036(a)(1)(B).
C. The Firm responded to a request for qualifications for legal services that was solicited by the HCDD1. Although the Firm has not previously had a relationship with the HCDD1, the Firm attorneys have extensive experience in practicing law in Hidalgo County, Texas. Lead trial counsel for the Firm is a native of the Rio Grande Valley, who practiced the majority of his legal career based in Hidalgo County. He has successfully represented parties and obtained favorable verdicts in jury trials in Hidalgo County. Lead appellate has been selected as its outside of choice by governmental units from throughout the State of Texas. The Firm's attorneys have represented scores of Hidalgo County and Rio Grande Valley citizens in a variety of different matters through the Firm's history. §2254.1036(a)(1)(C).
D. The claims alleged by HCDD1 are contested by the adverse parties, thus requiring the pursuit of claims in litigation. The HCDD1 does not have an inhouse legal department and the personnel of the HCDD1 cannot perform legal services. In addition, the support personnel of the HCDD1 cannot pursue the claims due to the respective cost, infrastructure and technology needed to perform these services. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(D).
E. The expected costs of a traditional hourly rate engagement with a law firm and the anticipated litigation costs make a contingency fee contract the best budgetary alternative for the HCDD1 and its taxpayers. The HCDD1 expects two or more experts to testify on behalf of HCDD1's position in the case. Those experts will seek compensation on an hourly basis; they cannot provide their opinions nor work on a contingency basis. Additionally, there are numerous depositions of fact witnesses that need to be conducted; deposition costs include a court reporter and videographer. These litigation costs could exceed one hundred thousand dollars.
The anticipated fees of retaining a law firm on a traditional hourly basis to pursue the contested claims could easily exceed several hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the amount of time needed to be devoted to research, writing, court appearances, discovery, trial/witness preparation and trial. Moreover, with a traditional engagement contract, the HCDD1 would have to finance the litigation costs. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(E).
F. It is believed that a contingency fee contract for the pursuit of the claims is in the best interest of the HCDD1. Under the contingent fee contract the HCDD1 is entitled to top quality legal representation at no cost unless there is a recovery. In the event of a recovery, the Firm will be reimbursed expenses and paid a percentage of the recovery regardless the number of hours the Firm spends working on the case. Furthermore, HCDD1 will only be responsible for paying the Firm from amounts recovered and from no other source. As such, the Firm is incentivized to obtain a full and fair recovery on behalf of the HCDD1. See Govt. Code § 2254.1036(a)(1)(F).