Pohl v. Cheatham

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Beck Redden clients, Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael Pohl, PLLC (together “Pohl”), in a lawsuit regarding the Texas civil barratry statute and its extraterritorial reach.

In the case, Pohl and another attorney—both of whom are Texas attorneys—represented out-of-state clients in out-of-state lawsuits involving serious personal injuries.  After the underlying personal injury cases settled successfully, the former clients sued Pohl and others alleging that they had been improperly solicited to hire Pohl and the other attorney by third parties.  The solicitations were alleged to have occurred out-of-state.  The clients sought to void their legal-services contracts and recover fees and penalties.

The civil barratry statute, found in Texas Government Code § 82.0651, creates a private right of action allowing clients to void a contract for legal services that was procured through barratry (which includes solicitation of legal employment) and seek recovery of attorney’s fees and penalties.

The central issue in the case was whether the civil barratry statute applies extraterritorially to out-of-state conduct.  Pohl and the other defendants argued that § 82.0651 does not apply to such conduct.  The former clients argued otherwise.

The Texas Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, ruled that the civil barratry statute does not apply to extraterritorial conduct.

The majority reaffirmed and applied the strong presumption against extraterritoriality, which has been long-established under Texas law.  Unless a contrary intent appeals, a statute is presumed to apply only within Texas’s borders.  Courts cannot conclude that the Legislature intended a statute to have extraterritorial effect absent language that can be construed as expressly giving extraterritorial effect to the statute.  Under this presumption, the majority held that the civil barratry statute did not apply extraterritorially.

The majority also held that the former clients’ claims represented an impermissible extraterritorial application of the civil barratry statute.  The focus of § 86.0651 is on the act of in-person solicitation of a client.  Since those alleged solicitations occurred out of state, the clients’ claims were barred under the presumption.

Thus, the majority opinion affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the clients’ § 82.0651 claims in favor of Pohl and the other defendants.

“We are gratified by the Texas Supreme Court’s majority opinion, which reaffirms the presumption against the extraterritorial application of statutes and correctly applies it to the civil barratry statute,” said Parth S. Gejji, the Beck Redden partner who served as lead appellate counsel for Pohl and presented oral argument in the Texas Supreme Court.

Gejji was assisted by co-counsel Allison Standish Miller of Steptoe LLP and Billy Shepherd and Stephen Bailey of Shepherd Prewett PLLC.

The case is Pohl v. Cheatham, — S.W.3d —, No. 23-0045, 2025 WL 1349691 (Tex. May 9, 2025)