# Lane v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0956 **Lane v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, No. 23-0956 (Tex. June 6, 2025). Holding: Rule 17.06(A)'s four-year limitations period applies to reciprocal-discipline cases, which are not among its exceptions; Lane did not waive it by failing to plead it; and the period runs from the underlying misconduct, so because her 2017 emails occurred more than four years before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel received her 2023 report, the rule bars the proceeding.** Practice areas: legal ethics, professional liability ## Key issues - Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.06(A)'s four-year limitations period applies to reciprocal-discipline proceedings, which are not excepted like compulsory-discipline cases, and it runs from the underlying misconduct, so the Commission for Lawyer Discipline could not discipline a Texas lawyer in 2023 for three emails sent to an Illinois federal magistrate in 2017. - The lawyer did not waive the limit by failing to plead it, because Rule 9.04, governing reciprocal discipline, does not require it to be pleaded, and the Court reversed the Board of Disciplinary Appeals' partially probated suspension and dismissed the proceeding. ## Factual History Nejla Lane, an attorney licensed in Illinois, Michigan, and Texas, represented the husband in a contentious Illinois divorce proceeding and brought a related federal wiretap suit before Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan (Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). After the judge denied her requests for more discovery time, Lane sent three emails in April and June 2017 to the judge's proposed-order inbox and her law clerk: the first claimed the judge was favoring opposing counsel, the second called an order "outrageous," and the third called an order "fraudulent" and warned, "What goes around comes around, justice will be done at the end!" (Opinion, PDF pp. 3-4). The judge ordered her to stop emailing the court and its staff and reported her; the Northern District of Illinois suspended her for six months in January 2018 for violating rules against conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and after a 2019 complaint the Illinois Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension followed by six months of probation in January 2023 (Opinion, PDF pp. 4-6). Lane self-reported the federal suspension to the State Bar in July 2020, when the rules did not require it, and Texas took no action; she reported the Illinois suspension in February 2023 as the rules then required (Opinion, PDF pp. 5-6 & n.2). ## Procedural History In March 2023, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CLD) filed a petition for reciprocal discipline with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA); Lane asserted defenses under Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 9.04 and an ex post facto defense (Opinion, PDF p. 6). A divided BODA rejected the defenses and imposed a partially probated suspension: a six-month suspension with a three-month probation period (Opinion, PDF p. 6). BODA concluded that Lane waived limitations by not pleading it in her written response, that Rule 17.06(A) does not apply to reciprocal discipline, and that if it did, the four-year clock started with the 2023 Illinois judgment, while one member would have held that the rule barred discipline and another dissented without opinion (Opinion, PDF pp. 6-7). Lane appealed on November 24, 2023; BODA stayed the suspension, and the Court granted review on August 30, 2024, heard argument on December 4, 2024, and decided the case on June 6, 2025 (Docket; Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 7, 22). ## Issues Presented Lane presents whether BODA's judgment must be overturned for misinterpreting Rule 17.06, whether Rule 17.06(A)'s four-year limitations period applies to reciprocal discipline and bars discipline for misconduct more than four years earlier, whether she was required to plead it, and whether her ex post facto defense invoked limitations (Brief on the Merits (Nejla Kassandra Keyfli Lane), PDF p. 8). The CLD presents whether BODA erred in imposing reciprocal discipline based on the January 2023 Illinois judgment, because the underlying conduct occurred in 2017, Lane was not required to plead limitations, or her ex post facto defense invoked it (Brief on the Merits (the Commission for Lawyer Discipline), PDF p. 13). The Court decided whether Rule 17.06(A) applies to reciprocal discipline, whether Lane waived it, and when the four years run (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 13-20). ## Standard(s) of Review In interpreting the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, the Court applies principles of statutory construction, considering the text as a whole and giving effect to all words and provisions (Opinion, PDF p. 8). ## Legal Arguments **Whether Rule 17.06(A) bars the reciprocal-discipline proceeding.** **Appellant (Lane):** Rule 17.06(A) applies to reciprocal discipline and bars discipline for professional misconduct more than four years old; her emails were sent in 2017, so BODA could not discipline her in 2023, and she was not required to plead the rule, or in any event her ex post facto defense invoked it (Brief on the Merits (Nejla Kassandra Keyfli Lane), PDF p. 8; Brief on the Merits (the Commission for Lawyer Discipline), PDF p. 20). **Appellee (CLD):** BODA correctly declined to apply Rule 17.06(A) to reciprocal discipline, which has no "Grievance" and for which the "Professional Misconduct" occurs when the other jurisdiction disciplines the lawyer, in January 2023; Lane also waived limitations by not pleading it, and she does not properly present any argument about her Rule 9.04 defenses (Brief on the Merits (the Commission for Lawyer Discipline), PDF p. 20; Opinion, PDF pp. 6-7, 13, 15-17). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Not applicable. This was a direct appeal from the Board of Disciplinary Appeals under the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, which the Court granted for argument (Opinion, PDF p. 7; Docket). ## Oral Argument - **Reciprocal cases forever.** Asked whether the Commission could bring reciprocal cases in perpetuity, its counsel said the rules require it to bring the case once notified of discipline elsewhere. (Oral Argument, 0:23:36) - **Waivable defense.** Asked whether the board should act on an unraised limitations problem, the Commission's counsel said the rules may not forbid it, but courts treat limitations as a waivable defense. (Oral Argument, 0:22:35) - **Report as grievance.** Asked whether reporting the 2020 federal order was itself a grievance, Lane said it was, though not required at the time. (Oral Argument, 0:11:14) - **Serial discipline.** Asked about the burden of discipline served at different times, the Commission's counsel said it can seem onerous, but the rules do not tell the board how to handle it. (Oral Argument, 0:28:59) - **Two orders, one conduct.** Asked whether anything tells the board which of two disciplines to apply, the Commission's counsel said no, but a tolling provision covers fraud or concealment. (Oral Argument, 0:33:18) - **No end date.** Asked why limitations would apply to discipline imposed in Illinois, Lane said otherwise the respondent attorney would face no finite end, and Texas merely recognizes what happened elsewhere. (Oral Argument, 0:02:09) ## Practice Area Tags legal-ethics, professional-liability ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Appeal from the Board of Disciplinary Appeals in a reciprocal-discipline case; argued December 4, 2024, and decided June 6, 2025 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 7, 22). ## Amicus Involvement None. The docket shows no amicus filings. ## Holding Rule 17.06(A)'s four-year limitations period applies to reciprocal-discipline cases, which are not among its exceptions; Lane did not waive it by failing to plead it; and the period runs from the underlying misconduct, so because her 2017 emails occurred more than four years before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel received her 2023 report, the rule bars the proceeding (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 13-22). ## Court's Reasoning **Rule 17.06's scope.** Rule 17.06 sits in the "Miscellaneous Provisions" and is generally applicable to all disciplinary proceedings save its three express exceptions: subsection (B) categorically exempts compulsory discipline, and subsections (C) and (D) delay accrual for a prosecutor's disclosure violation and for fraud or concealment; the drafters deliberately excepted compulsory discipline but not reciprocal discipline, and the exceptions show that the default is to start the clock when the misconduct occurs (Opinion, PDF pp. 10-13). Rule 9.04's list of five reciprocal-discipline defenses contains none resembling limitations (Opinion, PDF p. 10). **Waiver.** BODA wrongly relied on Rule of Civil Procedure 94, because Rule 9.04 expressly governs reciprocal discipline, enumerates what must be pleaded, and is silent about Rule 17.06(A); the CLD filed the petition directly with BODA, which was not acting as an appellate court, and BODA plainly knew of the rule (Opinion, PDF pp. 13-14 & n.5). The Court did not hold that Rule 17.06(A) is jurisdictional, since Rule 17.05 makes time periods not listed as mandatory directory only (Opinion, PDF p. 15). **"Grievance" and "Professional Misconduct."** Lane's 2023 email attaching the Illinois judgment was a "Grievance," defined as a written statement "from whatever source" alleging misconduct, with no requirement that it be classified and investigated; otherwise Rule 17.06(A) would not apply to compulsory discipline either, which makes Rule 17.06(B)'s exception unnecessary (Opinion, PDF pp. 15-17). The definition of "Professional Misconduct" in reciprocal cases, attorney conduct in another jurisdiction that results in discipline there, limits what is actionable but does not change that Rule 17.06(A) focuses on when the misconduct occurred, and the Rules define compulsory-discipline misconduct as the later conviction itself but could have, and did not, define reciprocal-discipline misconduct as the foreign judgment (Opinion, PDF pp. 17-20). The 2020 report of the federal suspension is not the operative grievance because the CLD took no action on it, and reading the rule otherwise would let the CLD discipline based on decades-old misconduct so long as some report was received within four years (Opinion, PDF pp. 20-21). **Dissents.** Justice Boyd, joined by Justice Busby, would hold that Lane waived limitations: Rule 9.04 lists the defenses an attorney must allege and prove to avoid reciprocal discipline and omits limitations, so Rule 17.06 does not apply, or if it does, Rule of Civil Procedure 94 required her to plead it, and he faulted the Court for treating a rule of limitations as other than an affirmative defense and for amending the rules by opinion (Boyd, J., dissenting, PDF pp. 1-4). Justice Busby would hold that even if Rule 17.06(A) applies and was not waived, the reciprocal discipline was timely, because under the reciprocal-discipline pathway the predicate "Professional Misconduct" was not complete until the Illinois Supreme Court imposed discipline, one month before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel received the order, and even under the ordinary pathway Lane's July 2020 report of her emails was a grievance received fewer than four years after them; he also objected that the Court changed the rules without notice and comment (Busby, J., dissenting, PDF pp. 1-3, 12). ## Disposition The Court reversed BODA's Judgment of Partially Probated Suspension and dismissed the disciplinary proceedings against Lane (Opinion, PDF p. 22). ## Vote Breakdown Justice Huddle delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Blacklock and Justices Lehrmann, Devine, Bland, Young, and Sullivan; Justice Boyd filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Busby, and Justice Busby filed a separate dissenting opinion (Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0956. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.