November 18, 2015 Ms. Nancy R Smith, Director State Bar of Texas Minimum Continuing Legal Education PO Box 13007 Austin, TX 78711-3007 Minimum Continuing Legal Education Board PO Box 13007 Austin, TX 78711-3007 By certified mail, return receipt requested, and email: mcle@texasbar.com NOTICE OF: 1, APPEAL FROM “NOTIFICATION OF NON-ACCREDITATION FOR FUTURE PRESENTATIONS”, and VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT The undersigned appeal from the decision of Nancy R. Smith, Director, and the Minimum Continuing Legal Education Board of the State Bar of Texas, dated November 4, 2015, and attached hereto as Exhibit 6. The prospective denial makes clear that Ms. Smith and the Board will only accredit “secular” programs, and not those which include any “instruction on religious or moral responsibilities.” As set forth herein, that prospective determination violates the Regulations of the MCLE Board itself. Itis inconsistent with the relevant Texas Disciplinary Rules which provide, in part, “It is proper for a lawyer to refer to relevant moral and ethical considerations in giving advice.” Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof'l Conduct R. 2.01 Comment 2. It violates the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to speak, associate, and freely exercise religion. The manner in which this prospective denial has occurred violates the Due Process rights and the Equal Protection rights of the undersigned. This action violates comparable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and gives rise to a cause of action under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The action appears to violate other laws as well. Factual Background On August 20, 2015 the undersigned Bill Piatt submitted the attached “Application For Accreditation Of CLE Activity” for a program entitled, “Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today. Exhibit 1. The activity was sponsored by St. Mary's University School of Law inconjunction with the Catholic Lawyers Guild of San Antonio Texas, and the Christian Legal Society of San Antonio. It featured as presenters prominent attorneys, a former judge, attorney/mediators, the Dean of St. Mary's Law School, a law professor who is a former dean of St. Mary's, and a third law professor. By letter dated September 1, 2015, Ms. Smith issued a “Notification of Non- Accreditation.” Exhibit 2. On September 2, 2015 Bill Piatt spoke with Ms. Smith and with Lowery Kraft of the MCLE office of the State Bar of Texas. Following that conversation, Bill Piatt submitted a request for reconsideration to them. Exhibit 3. On that same date, September 2, 2015, Ms. ‘Smith reviewed the request for reconsideration and provisionally approved the CLE program for 3.75 hours of credit. Exhibit 4. Bill Piatt requested that he be allowed to attend any follow-up ‘meetings and submit copies of the videotape of the program to any meetings at which the MCLE board would consider future accreditation issues. On September 2, 2015, formal “Notification of Accreditation of CLE Activity” was issued to Bill Piatt and St. Mary's University School of Law. Exhibit 5. (It should be noted at this point that credit was quickly granted by the MCLE Board of the State of New Mexico for this program as well.) The CLE program took place on the campus of St. Mary's University school of law on October 2, 2015. Approximately 30 attorneys attended, and approximately 50 St. Mary's University school of law students either attended or viewed tapes of the CLE program. Thereafter there was no communication to the undersigned regarding any opportunity to meet with the MCLE board to discuss future presentations or to submit a copy of the tape of the CLE activity at St. Mary’s to that Board. Without notice, on November 4, 2015 Ms. Smith and the MCLE board issued the attached “Notice of Non-Accreditation For Future Presentations” (Exhibit 6) which is the subject to this appeal. ‘Argument 1, There appears to be no authority in the MCLE regulations for the issuance of a prospective denial of any future presentations. 2. Not only does the prospective denial violate the applicable rules, it unlawfully serves to. create a chilling effect upon the exercise of the First Amendment rights to speak, associate, and freely exercise religion in that it deters anyone who might even think about attending, presenting or organizing any future CLE dealing with topics of morality and religion,3. The determination to deny future accreditation was made without any notice nor opportunity to be heard by those who might organize or present at a future CLE program, thereby depriving them of their rights to Due Process as guaranteed by the Sth and 14"" amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and by the comparable provisions in the Constitution of the State of Texas. It might also have violated state law regarding open meetings. It was apparently made without any review of the program which was presented on October 2, 2015, even though the undersigned had specifically asked to be able to be present for any meetings or discussions of the future of similar programs, and was denied the opportunity to do so by respondents. 4. Lawyers in Texas are required to receive annual training in ethics. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Responsibility specifically address the role of the attorney in providing advice. In Comment number 2, to Disciplinary Rule 2.01 regarding “Scope of Advice,” the rules provide: “2. Advice couched in narrow legal terms may be of little value to a client, especially where practical considerations, such as costs or effects on other people, are predominant. Purely technical legal advice, therefore, can sometimes be inadequate. It is proper for a lawyer to refer to relevant moral and ethical considerations in giving advice. Although a lawyer is not a moral advisor as such, moral and ethical considerations impinge upon most legal questions and may decisively influence how the law will be applied.” Clearly the Rules permit, even encourage, the application of moral and ethical considerations in order for the attorney to provide the best possible advice to a client. The instant action which will deny CLE credit to attorneys for a program which discusses those concerns, and demonstrates to attorneys how those principles might be formulated and applied, violates at least the spirit of those Rules. 5. The notion that there is some distinction between “secular” and “non-secular” laws and legal principles is absolutely inconsistent with our system of jurisprudence. While this topic could occupy many volumes, a quick look at two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States reveal how important morality and religion is to contemporary jurisprudence. For ‘example, in 1964 the Supreme Court heard the case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). In that case, the owner of the motel brought a challenge to the provisions of Title Il of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, That Act outlawed race discrimination in public accommodations, including motels. The owner of the motel did not deny that he was engaging in race discrimination. Rather, he argued that the legislation was based on morality. The Supreme Court rejected his argument. The court concluded, “... That Congress was legislating against moral wrongs in many of these areas (i.e., prostitution, gambling, racial discrimination in interstate carriers) rendered its enactments no less valid. In framing Title II, Congress was also dealing with what it considered a moral problem.” Id, at 257. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the majority opinion explicitly recognized that the abortion controversy involved moral and religious concerns. id. at 116.Clearly moral and religious concerns are involved in the framing of laws, and in their application. There is no legally supported justification for the State of Texas to preclude its attorneys from exploring these matters in order to receive CLE credit. Moreover, Dean Sheppard addressed these issues in his presentation in the CLE program of October 2, 2015, a presentation that was ignored by the MCLE Board and Ms. Smith in the framing of the ill-founded and ad hoc decision that is the subject of this appeal. 6. While there are some limits, attorneys do not surrender their First Amendment rights by becoming attorneys. For example, the First Amendment guarantees attorneys the right to advertise within a certain framework. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). Similarly, attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak at CLE programs and to listen to those presentations, and to associate with attorneys who share similar interests. Given that the foundation of law concerns morality and at times religion, there is a First Amendment right of attorneys to speak on these issues as they impact the professional obligations of attorneys. The prospective ban violates the First Amendment guarantees to speak and assemble, and comparable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Texas. It constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint upon the speech of the organizers, presenters, and potential attendees. There is no evidence of any narrow tailoring in the Notice which is the subject of this appeal; rather an unconstitutionally vague, and at the same time, blunt crushing of any speech that is not “secular” is precluded. 7. Similarly, attorneys do not surrender their right to the free exercise of their religion by becoming attorneys. And what does free exercise of religion entail in this context? Free exercise means more than worship. As the Supreme Court has held, “the exercise of religion involves not only belief and profession, but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts that, are engaged in for religious reasons”. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2770 (2014) (citing Smith 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990)). As Christian attorneys, and as Christian educators, we have the First Amendment right to exercise our religion by pat ating in CLE programs which explain to our peers various perspectives on law which includes an application of moral concepts under the Texas ary Rules. The prospective ban on such activity violates the Free Exercise Clause. 8. The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has never, and in the opinion of the undersigned, would never delegate to the MCLE Board or to Ms. Smith the power to limit CLE credit to “secular” presentations. Thus the instant decision was made without authority. 9. While announcing that the undersigned may not present CLE programs which touch on religious or moral themes, the MCLE Board and Ms, Smith have approved (correctly) at least one other program recently which directly involves those themes. On February 26, 2015, the MCLE Board awarded one hour of CLE credit in ethics, for a presentation by the Jewish Ethics Institute entitled, “Freedom of Religion in the Courts.” See:https://www,texasbar.com/AM/CustomSource/Wrapper/members/onlinetools/coursedetail.as p2courseid=901312343. This was a correct and important accreditation. However, to deny the undersigned the right to present similar topics for CLE ethics credit violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14" Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and comparable provisions in the Texas Constitution. 10. The undersigned give notice as required by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act that, as set out above, the actions of the MCLE Board and Ms. Smith constitute a substantial burden upon the religious freedom of the undersigned by the exercise of the governmental authority of the Board and Ms. Smith. The manner in which the respondents have acted will preclude the undersigned from organizing, presenting, and attending accredited CLE programs which touch on religious or moral themes. Law and religion are important aspects of the free exercise of the religion of the undersigned, in their respective roles as educators and attorneys. The Notice which is the subject of this appeal and notice should be immediately rescinded. Conclusion The “Notification of Non-Accreditation For Future Presentations” is not authorized by applicable regulations. Its implementation violates the constitutionally- protected rights of due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the free exercise of religion. It Violates statutory authority, Ms. Smith and the MCLE board should immediately rescind it because it creates an unlawful chilling effect on those who would organize, present, or attend CLE programs put on by the undersigned in the future. Respectfully submitted, stephen M. Sheppard, J.S.D. Dean, and Charles E. Cantti Distinguished Professor of Law St. Mary's University School of Law One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 78228 B ! bgt SBot FOOIASIOS Bill Piatt Professor of Law Former Dean (1998-2007) St. Mary’s University School of Law ‘One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 782281 ; Cathohe Luuipees euill 6 Bit Dutt Catholic Lawyers Guild of San Antonio, Texas By its President, Bill Piatt 107 Cobblestone Court San Antonio, Texas 78213 The following attorneys, who would wish to serve as presenters, organizers, or attendees at future CLE programs add their names to this appeal and notice as intervenors: dee Gavaat” *240 84864 Sandea Schuck Gagart~ Cp ——“‘isoro0 170126 LIZA M. McGinn Dereon a. D.aherors % AY00 5796 David U Maugraa 00787984 Aol? Pree Maen Comtesse: Sen 007 F652. Mie. J. Rossi Se. SB le. 14807450 NDA DE Co Michael Alexander Tabet oaccks g oon DOHA Lisete LongePant Forn. APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION OF CLE ACTIVITY State Bar of Texas Minimum Continuing Legal Education P.O, Bor 19007" Austin, TH TB711-3007 Sweet Adee: 1414 Caarado St, FAN Flor, Aust, TK 7870: Phone: 1 (600) 204-222 ext 1005 Fax 1 (12) 427-4425 Ema" moa @enadbarcan ‘SUBMITTED BY: (2) Sponeor he LE Aatiy Ti thvdvalKiaray Secking Gra or GuatSiata CLE Aatay (Gombete pare f, 8, C ane ) (Complete Pare A, nd D) ARTA ‘NON-ACCREDITED SPONSOR INFORMATION ‘SPONSOR NUMBER: 0017 {SOWSON NAVE: St Mary's Univer Schoo! of Lav CONTACT NAME: Hint PHONE: (@210_)436835 ex: Perea MAILING ACORESS: Ono Camino Santa Mara, San Antoni, Toxse 78228 EMAL ADDRESS-bplatetmarycedy PARTE GLE ACTIVITY INFORMATION "TITLE OF ACTWITY. Chistian Ethical Perepotives: Fath and Law Today MOTELIOFFICE:St Mary's Sehoalof Law oArE: Oct, 2016 CrTy.Son Antonto SUE: TX poomoval vooarions? [3] no Clves catacn senecuie) TOTAL NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EXPECTED TO ATTEND: 20 FHEGISTRATION FEE: $40 “TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-ATTORNEYS EXPECTED TO ATTEND: @ [AREA(S OF STUDY (Plato cae ove soo areas of sy: FAM, MED, ETH (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: WETHOD OF PRESENTATION C1 iisouse acTIViy ony otros i tre ibn your fim oregon) @ uvecrourrresexmon Comer: D WarTen MATERIALS WiL BE ISTRIBUTED 1D cnoue woeo PREsexracion THE ACTIVITY IS DESIGNED FOR, AND TARGETED TO ATTORNEYS: OO croursereure pres. on cemano ‘ONLINE SERNA Cite acriiry is ™AGETED TO OTHER PROFESSIONALS OF CLIENTS: Cue retephonemencast (tach sor pet aoc ‘GLE GREDIT HOURS: Calculation of CLE orest hours ls based upon actual rsraton ne, vounded toe noarel one Qaaaar (2S howe TOTAL inuTES TOTAL PARTICIPATORY HOURS: TomLerics, OrmstAvcriON: 240, (TOTAL MINUTES DIDED BY 6) 4 (amber of etis noue teluingeis (eluce eis htt!) lnlued nh il he REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: Aliach an ouiine, agenda andlor brochure Tor the acy which describes the folowing: 1. The owral coche ana purpose of he program “timed outne oc agen ich rsh nsetns see Geveted wo each eure 2. The conn ana subject ator a each acre arson ‘xsesson. The agenda whol era wogeing an ending bine re peso ‘& Norge aned aul enc peske or preari on ellos sched beaks, unchee opening rere thd & PART C ‘SPONSOR ACCREDITATION FEE ~~ Please select one of the folowing payment options Papert Opon k= $29.90 X tl priatry hos 1 out tate Fring Fe: & $100 aa ing fe eee or appleaton at are (me hl tes. won submis Payment Option Ais sled) noted atm MCLE otis calc doe pa a aes {at ofthe actly. This fin acon the aera eo ae eae C1 Payment Option 8 = 610 ha maméer a oreye staring ten I act is exam rom acetone (Gee MCLE Roguaton,Sacion 102.) C1 exemet(S0 introns on sees side determine ota) (7 om cnn be retras by xyou ar rage pay en aerecton e) (Urless ext, te mira ee, regardless fb cpl elated i $5800) sine AuoUer Px reign way Tan fb Seep Pant 0 Tun AMORET REORIRTGN eo ara OT ee sensu sag ee z pee (yee =u ca INDIVIDUAL APPLIGATIONS FOR TELEPHONE, NTERNET OR OTHER INTERACTIVE PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITIES WIL NOT BE ACCEPTED ‘A 525 FEE 1S REQUIRED WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION. PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO ‘STATE BAR OF TEXA PARTE "ADDITIONAL FORMS REQUEST Please not: strieson of elendance forme rues 82 po atlonces oe | "Aecrediaion Apateaion: evalabe a wrwiexasbarcomnGLE | — Ntendance Forma Extipir 1, P.tApplication for Accreditation of CLE Activity Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today 1, The overall objective and purpose of this program is to educate and inform attorneys regarding ethical perspectives from both a legal and religious perspective in five different areas. Those areas include the overall dutles imposed by law and faith, the role of Christian attorneys in Family Law matters, the ethical use of alternative dispute resolution, life issues, and constructing processes to assist clients from a faith and ethical perspective. 2. The content and subject matter of each session, together with the names and qualifications of each speaker are as follows: A. Stephen M. Sheppard, J.S. Dean and Charles M. Cantu Distinguished Professor of Law Title: Faith, Morals, Law and Duty Description: This presentation will examine the overall ethical issues facing attomeys of faith. Ethics: 0.5 hours (30 minutes) 8. Panel Discussion: Victor Negron (attorney and former judge), Emest Karam {attorney and mediator), Art Rossi (attorney), Evelyn Martinez Huron (attorney), Bill Piatt (professor of law and attorney). Title: The Role of the Christian Attorney in Family Law Matters Description: This panel will examine, from a Christian perspective, and from the perspective of a judge, a mediator and attorneys, recurring ethical dilemmas in family law practice. Ethles: 55 minutes CPanel Discussion: Julian Schwartz (attorney), Chad Olsen (attorney), Mike Simpson (attorney), and Ben Chappell (attorney). EXWIBIT 1, PZTitle: Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for Serving Clients Description: This panel will consider the uses of collaborative law, Christian Reconciliation and Early Intervention mediation, focusing on the application of ethical and moral principles to assist clients Ethi 55 minutes . Panel Discussion: Sandra Garant (attorney), Robert Summers (professor of law and attorney), David Mayorga (attorney). Title: fe Issues Description: This panel will focus on ethical dilemmas facing attorneys of faith in areas involving abortion, use of deadly force in a “just war” and other life issues. Sue Hall (attorney), Ben Chappell (attorney), Title: Fitting legal processes to people (rather then vice versa). Description: This panel will examine how Christian attorneys may ethically modify, implement, and even create processes to assist their client, applying principles of faith, Ethics: 55 minutes 3. Aschedule is attached. Please note that the entire program, excluding breaks consists of 250 minutes of instruction, which should qualify for 4.0 hours of ethics CLE credit. One of the presentations is scheduled for 30 minutes, and the remaining four will run 55 minutes each. if it is required that each of the four 55 minutes presentations run 60 minutes each so that each qualifies as a full hour, we will do that, still seeking a total of 4.0 hours credit for the program. EXHIBIT 1, P.3Final Schedule Catholic Lawyers Guild (CLG) Christian Legal Society (CLS) Continuing Legal Education Programa: CHRISTIAN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES: FAITH AND LAW TODAY Friday, October 2, 2015 ‘St. Mary’s University School of Law—Alumni Room, Law Library Noon to 12:20 12:20 to 12:25 12:25 to 12:55 12:55 to 1:00 1:00 to 1:55 1:55 t0 2:00 2:00 to 2:55 2:55 to 3:00 3:00 to 3:55 3:55 to 4:00 4:00 to 4:55 4:55 to 5:00 Registration Welcome (Bill Piatt) and introduction of luncheon speaker, Dean Stephen Sheppard Opening Remarks (Dean Sheppard) break ‘The Role of the Christian Attorney in Family Law Matters. Victor Negron, Emes Karam, Art Rossi, Evelyn Martinez Huron, Bill Piatt, Moderator break Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for Serving Clients. Collaborative Law (Gulian Schwartz and Chad Olsen), Christian Reconciliation (Mike Simpson), and Barly Invervention Mediation (Ben Chappell). break Life Issues. Sandra Garant, Professor Robert Summers. David Mayorga, Moderator break Fitting Legal Processes to People (Rather than Vice Versa); 80 Years of Perspectiy on Serving People Throughout Legal Processes (Sue Hall and Ben Chappell) Conelusion EXHIBIT 1,P-4STATE BAR OF TEXAS Minimum Continuing Legal Education PO. BOX 13007 / AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2007 / 1414 Celera, Sule 58 | Asn, Yes 78701 00-204 2002, xt 1006 | 812427-Ye06 | Pan B24? Aes CEP September 1, 2015 Mr, Bill Piatt St. Mary's University School of Law One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, TX 78228 RE: Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today San Antonio, TX, October 2, 2015 NOTIFICATION OF NON-ACCREDITATION Dear Mr. Piatt: We recently evaluated the above referenced activity. Upon completion of our evaluation, it was found that this activity does not satisfy several of the accreditation criteria adopted by the MCLE Committee. Therefore, we regret to inform you that this activity has not been MCLE accredited. Based upon the course description and materials submitted with the application, it was determined that this activity would be excluded from accreditation by the definition of legal ethics/professional responsibility outlined in the enclosed Accreditation Standards for CLE Activities, The definition of legal ethics/professional responsibilty allows credit only for those topics dealing with matters pertaining to attorney duties and responsibilities, and excludes credit for general and business ethics topics as well as for topics dealing with personal development. For information regarding appeal of this decision, please refer to MCLE Regulations, Section 10.9-10,11.3, which can be reviewed at www.texasbar.com/mcle. ‘According to MCLE records, an overpayment has been received and you have a credit of $30. Please contact our office to request either a refund check or a credit to be applied toa future application. Please contact our office if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Oar lbt Nancy R. St Director Enclosures Legal Ethics EXNBIT 2Piatt, Bill Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:54 AM ‘mcle@texasbar.com Sheppard, Stephen; bilpiatt @gmail.com Request for reconsideration: ATTN Nancy Smith and Lowery Kraft Attachments: reconsideration. docx Please see the attached. Thank you! Bill Piatt Professor of Law Dean (1998-2007) St, Mary’s University School of Law My latest book: “Catholic Legal Perspectives, Second Edition,” published by the Carolina Academic Press, 2015. Exner 3, P| 1Hello Nancy and Lowery, Thank you for allowing me to provide additional information regarding our proposed continuing legal education program, "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" which will be held on the ‘campus of St. Mary's University school of law in San Antonio Texas on October 2, 2015. You already have our completed application form, schedule, and summary of the program. | am writing to offer this additional information with the hopes that you will accredit our program. While our speakers are still Preparing their materials, can represent to you as an attorney licensed since 1975 (NM) and Texas (1996), 2s a professor of law with teaching responsibilities in the area of ethics and professional responsibility, as a former Dean of St. Mary's law school, and as a consultant and speaker on ethics issues, that the overarching theme of our program relates to rule 2.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and will educate attorneys how to apply it in their practices. As you are well aware, that Rule, and Comment 2 to that Rule provid “2.01: In advising or otherwise representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. Comment: Scope of Advice 2. Advice couched in narrow legal terms may be of little value to a client, especially where practical considerations, such as costs or effects on other people, are predominant. Purely technical legal advice, therefore, can sometimes be inadequate. It is proper for a lawyer to refer to relevant moral and ethical considerations in giving advice. Although a lawyer is not a moral advisor as such, moral and ethical considerations impinge upon most legal questions and may decisively influence how the law will be applied. "(emphasis added). Our program will be an application of these principles. Indeed, the first presentation is by Stephen M. Shepherd, our current Dean. He will speak explicitly on, “Faith, Morals, Law and Duty.” However, our Program is not focused exclusively on matters of morality, And, the “morality” that is discussed is not an attempt to proselytize regarding individual religious or moral perspectives. Rather it isa discussion of how attorneys can apply the substantive law, the rules of ethics, and be better able to ethically provi their clients with legal services, Our second presentation is @ panel discussion that focuses on Family Law issues. As noted, the speakers are a former judge, an attorney/mediator, two other attorneys, and | will moderate, While the panelists are working on their presentations, again | will represent that this portion of the program will cover substantive family law as well as an application of rule 2.01 and other ethics matters related to conflict of interest, competence, and the like. Our third panel consists of three attorneys who will discuss alternative dispute resolution processes for serving clients. They will consider and discuss, among other matters, the use of collaborative law, early EXHIBIT 3, Pztheir intervention mediation, and Christian reconciliation applying ethical and moral principles to a: clients. ‘The fourth presentation is @ panel discussion involving two attorneys and a professor of law. The title of the discussion is “Life Issues.” Prof. Summers has written and lectured on the concept of just war theory. This is a domestically and internationally recognized area of legal concern. itis a concern of those who, from their own backgrounds, are interested in other law and life issues including abortion and the death penalty. This panel will discuss important legal developments in these areas. ‘The final discussion will be presented by two attorneys with a combined 80 years of law practice. They will discuss how to implement and even create processes that are consistent with their role as attorneys, to ethically advance the interests of their clients, ‘Among the underlying materials which will serve as the background and for further reading will be some of my published works on ethics, and materials that are being prepared by our speakers. | will represent to you that | will provide all of our speakers with a copy of the accreditation rules so that as they finalize their presentations, they can be certain to focus on areas that qualify under the MCLE rules. We can videotape our program and provide it to you for additional review. | will make myself available at any time you want to discuss these matters further. | would respectfully submit that our program meets the Accreditation Standards. Dean Sheppard's presentation will be streamed live, meeting the requirement under LA. The remaining portions will be conducted live at St. Mary's, meeting |.B. Regarding the substance, the respective portions of the program will meet either subsections A and 8 under part I, and will also meet the requirements of C.D. and E of part I. Again, this program is not designed to proselytize. Indeed, among members of the two lawyers groups involved in this presentation, the Catholic Lawyers Guild and the Christian Legal Society, there are areas of agreement and disagreement regarding views of religion and morality. Neither group nor individual attorneys on our panels are interested in using a CLE program to try to convert anyone to their religious views. Rather, the reality is that we are lawyers. We are Christians. We are allowed and encouraged to include concerns of morality and ethics in our representation of our clients. This program is an attempt to provide a backdrop for how attorneys can develop and improve on their knowledge of the substantive law in their ethical application of their work skills. All of our presenters are attorneys, most with substantial legal experience. Three are law professors, including our current Dean, and myself, as a former Dean. One is a former State district judge. One is a mediator with 30 years experience. ‘While obviously Texas is not bound by the decisions in other states, the only other state to which we have submitted an application for CLE accreditation, New Mexico, has approved our program for 3.7, hours Ethics credit. Texas would not be going out on some limb approving this program. Finally, it appears that there will be a great deal of interest in our program. We are holding off final Publicity efforts, though, hoping to resolve this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional questions. The best way to reach me is by my cell: 210-287-1370. EXNBir 3, D.3Piatt, Bill Ss MCLE Mclemail Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2:57 PM To: Piatt, Bill Subject: RE: Request for reconsideration: ATTN Nancy Smith and Lowery Kraft Mr. Piatt, Thank you for sending the additional information | requested. | have reviewed your request and can provisionally approve the program for 3.75 hours. This means that yes, the program is approved, but | will be sending the application and course documentation to the MCLE Committee for review. This is to help us in the consideration of similar Programs in the future. Although we would not take away credit after granting it, if the Committee determines that credit should not have been granted, then this would affect the accreditation of future programs with similar content. We'll notify you of the Committee’s decision after the meeting. At this time the meeting is tentatively set for mid-October. Please let me know if you need additional information or assistance. Thank you, Nancy R. Smith Director, MCLE MCLE Dept. / P.O. Box 13007 / Austin, TX 78711-3007 Phone:1-800-204-2222 ext. 1806 / Fax:512-427-4423 Email: mele @texasbar.com / website: www.texasbar.com/mele This e-mail transmission and any attachments to it contains information from the Minimum Continuing Legal Education department of the State Bar of Texas, which may be confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by telephone or return e-mail immediately so that I can arrange for the deletion of the information and. destruction of any copies that have been made at no cost to you. From: Piatt, Bill [mailto:bpiatt@stmarytx.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:54 AM To: MCLE Mclemail Cc: Sheppard, Stephen; billplatt1@gmail.com ‘Subject: Request for reconsideration: ATTN Nancy Smith and Lowery Kraft Please see the attached. Thank you! Bill Piatt Professor of Law Dean (1998-2007) St. Mary's University School of Law My latest book: “Catholic Legal Perspectives, Second Edition,” published by the Carolina Academic Press, 2015. 1 EXHIBIT 4STATE BAR OF TEXAS Minimum Continuing Legal Education 0.x S/n, Tee 7707/4 ol Ts 170 800-204-2222, ox. 1806 512-427-1800 / Fa 812-427-4429, ‘mali mée@texasbar.com Bill Piatt 09/02/2015 St. Mary's University School of Law ‘One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, TX 78228 COURSE TITLE: Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith & Law Today COURSE DATE(S); 10/02/2015 TO 10/02/2015 COURSE LOCATION: San Antonio, TX COURSE NO: 901326316 SPONSOR NO.: 0017 NOTIFICATION OF ACCREDITATION OF CLE ACTIVITY The above referenced CLE activity that your organization submitted for accreditation in Texas has been reviewed and ACCREDITED as follows: ACCREDITED CLE HOURS ETHICS HOURS MCLE AND STATE BAR COLLEGE 03.75 03.75 The application shows Option A as the method for calculating the MCLE Accreditation fee. As of this date, our records show the following payment information toward this fee, and the late filing fee (if applicabiey ACCRED. FEE LATE FEE AMOUNT PAID CREDIT DUE $75.00 $0.00 $80.00 $5.00 Please contact our office to request either a refund check or a credit to be applied to a future application. CLE sponsors are required to submit attendance information for all MCLE accredited activities. Texas attendees may be submitted on State Bar of Texas CLE Course Attendance Forms (completed and gathered at the activity and returned together with a copy of this notifictation) or by reporting attendance Via the Texas MCLE online sponsor site. Attendance lists and certificates will not be accepted. Additional applications may be downloaded from www.texasbar. com/mele Ifyou have any questions regarding accreditation or attendance submission, please contact our office at the address, phone or email shown above. Provisional Approval. EXNIBIT &STATE BAR OF TEXAS Minimum Continuing Legal Education P.O. BOK 19007 / AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2007 / 1474 Colorado, Ste £09 / Aus Toras 78701 00-2012222, Bx, 1806 512-427-1808 Fae 12427-4428 ema meleteeasbarcom November 4, 2015, VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS DELIVERY Mr. Bill Piatt St. Mary's University School of Law (One Camino Santa Maria ‘San Antonio, TX 78228 RE: Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith & Law Today October 2, 2015 ‘San Antonio, TX NOTIFICATION OF NON-ACCREDITATION FOR FUTURE PRESENTATIONS Dear Mr. Piatt: ‘The MCLE Committee recently evaluated the above-referenced activity to determine if credit can be granted for future similar programs. As discussed, we granted a one-time MCLE accreditation to the above-referenced activity. However, because we were uncertain as to whether this activity would fully satisfy all of the criteria outlined in the accreditation standards, we sent your application and supporting documentation to the MCLE Committee for further review. Upon completion of their evaluation, the Committee found that this activity does not satisfy several of the accreditation criteria and therefore, will not be approved in the future. Based upon the course description and materials submitted with the application, it was determined that this activity would be denied accreditation by the definition of legal ethics as outlined in the enclosed Accreditation Standards for CLE Activities. The definition of legal ethics/professional responsibilty allows credit only for those topics dealing with matters pertaining specifically to attorney duties and responsibilities and excludes credit for individual religious or moral responsibilities. To be approved for partial credit in the future, the Portions devoted to secular law and legal ethics would need to be clearly identified and separate from instruction on religious or moral responsibilities. Otherwise, we would not be able to allow MCLE accreditation for any portion of the program, For information regarding appeal of this decision, please refer to MCLE Regulations, Section 10.9-10.11.3. These Regulations can be found at ww.texasbar.com/mele. Please contact our office if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Wray bt Nancy R. Smith Director Enclosures EXHIBIT G