BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 3181
By: Munoz
May 6, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

In 1989, a local bill to clarify the county's position was amended
to specifically allow the practice of law so that pay raises would
not have to be considered.  However, then Senator Hector Uribe
modified the bill to set a January 1, 1995 deadline for the County
to reconsider higher salaries.  As everyone is well aware the
economy is taking a downturn.  The County may not be able to afford
the additional expenditures of nearly doubling the salaries of four
Judges.

PURPOSE

This bill would allow a judge and to engage in private practice.
However, they are prohibited from practice law in a state, county,
or municipal court. The judge would be allowed to practice in a
federal court.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

     SECTION 1. Amends Section 25.1102(l), Government Code, by
allowing a judge of a county court in Hidalgo County to engage in
the private practice of law until January 1, 2005 except that:

           (l) a judge of a county court may not engage in private
practice of law in a state, county, or municipal court.

     SECTION 2. Amends Section 25.1102, Government Code, by adding
Subsection (m) making Section 25.1102(l) expire January 1, 2005.
     
     SECTION 3. Amends Sect. 25.1102, Government Code, by adding
Subsection (n), to prohibit a county court at law judge from
engaging in the private practice of law.
     
     SECTION 4. Emergency Clause.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute allows a Hidalgo County judge to engage in the
private practice of law. They are prohibited from practicing law in
a state, county, or municipal court. It allows them to practice law
only in federal court. The substitute removes the subsection
expiration date.

Section 2 of the substitute changes Subsection (m) to state the
expiration date.

Section 3 of the substitute contains the effective date with the
addition of Subsection (n). Subsection (n) was previously
subsection (m) in the original.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

House Bill 3181 was considered by the Committee on Civil Practices
in a public hearing on April 26, 1995. The following individuals
testified in support of the bill: Rodolfa Delgado, representing
himself and Judge Jamie Garza, Judge Richard Garcia and Judge
Leticia Hinojosa of Hidalgo County Courts at Law. No one testified
in opposition to or neutrally on the bill. The bill was referred to
a subcommittee consisting of Representatives Zbranek (chair),
Culberson and Alvarado. After being recalled from subcommittee, the
bill was considered by the committee in a public hearing on May 3,
1995. The committee considered a complete committee substitute for
the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. H.B. 3181
was reported favorably, as substituted with the recommendation that
it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of seven ayes, zero
nays, zero pnv and two absent. The committee held a formal meeting
on May 6, 1995, to reconsider H.B. 3181. The motion to reconsider
the vote to report H.B. 3181 was approved without objection. The
bill was reported favorably, as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass, be printed and be sent to the
Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, by a record vote of seven
ayes, zero nays, zero pnv and two absent.