# Tex. Law Shield, LLC v. Perez Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-1108 **Tex. Law Shield, LLC v. Perez, No. 25-1108, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Does civil barratry under Government Code section 82.0651 turn on what the soliciting lawyer or advertiser knew or should have known about the audience's need for legal services, or on whether the people addressed actually had an existing or imminent legal need?** Practice areas: legal ethics, civil procedure ## Key issues - Does civil barratry under Government Code section 82.0651 turn on what the soliciting lawyer or advertiser knew or should have known about the audience's need for legal services, or on whether the people addressed actually had an existing or imminent legal need? - Does a safety training that precedes a legal-services sales pitch count as a "particular occurrence or event" under Penal Code section 38.01, and do attendees with no shown need for the services have standing to recover statutory damages? ## Factual History Texas Law Shield sells legal-services memberships to firearm owners that cover only future civil or criminal proceedings arising from a later use of a firearm, and markets them through sales representatives invited to speak at events (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 13). In December 2022 a Houston school for healthcare professionals invited Law Shield to lead an active-shooter training for about 40 employees, and territory manager Gary Blalock opened with a short speech about the membership program before a retired officer taught the training; no plaintiff signed up, none owned a firearm, and a few days later one plaintiff's lawyer-spouse sent Law Shield a letter demanding $60,000 to settle barratry claims (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 14-16). The employees who sued say Law Shield, which has twice before been sued for barratry over sales pitches at concealed-handgun-license classes, used a commissioned non-lawyer salesperson to hard-sell legal-service contracts during what they understood to be mandatory training, and that Blalock testified that people attending active-shooter training need its firearm-related legal services (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 8-10, 15-17). ## Procedural History The employees (Juan Manel Perez, Katie Kassab, and Bianca Arguello) sued Law Shield and associated lawyers and entities in the 334th District Court of Harris County under Government Code section 82.0651(c), and the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the claims (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 16-17). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed in a memorandum opinion, holding that the need for legal services is viewed from the lawyer's or advertiser's perspective under Disciplinary Rules 7.01 and 7.03 and that the active-shooter class was an event that itself created a future legal need for purposes of the Penal Code, and it denied rehearing (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 17). The Supreme Court granted review on September 4, 2026, and merits briefs have been ordered. ## Issues Presented - Law Shield (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 11): whether the court of appeals erred in reversing summary judgment because (1) the Penal Code and Disciplinary Rules prohibit communications promoting legal services to a prospective client with an active or imminent need, and the Fourteenth Court has inconsistently judged that need from the attorney's and the plaintiff's perspectives, disregarding this Court's 2022 amendments to the Rules; and (2) a plaintiff who shows no actual or imminent injury lacks standing to recover under the barratry statute. - The employees (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 15-16): whether the court of appeals correctly applied Rules 7.01 and 7.03, Penal Code sections 38.01 and 38.12 and its own precedent in holding that fact issues preclude traditional summary judgment. ## Standard(s) of Review The court of appeals reviewed a traditional summary judgment and held that fact issues precluded it (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 15). ## Legal Arguments **Whose perspective decides whether a communication is prohibited solicitation.** **Law Shield (Petitioners):** The plain text of Rules 7.01 and 7.03, as amended in 2022, and the Penal Code make Blalock's general presentation permissible advertising, and the court of appeals' rule, which departs from its own *Crowley II* decision that judged the question from the barratry plaintiff's perspective, creates strict liability for in-person advertising to people who are not prospective clients (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 18, 21). In reply, Law Shield says the court of appeals misconstrued Rule 7.01 and section 38.01 of the Penal Code (Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF pp. 6-7). **The employees (Respondents):** The rules regulate the solicitor's conduct and knowledge, asking whether the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know that the person needs legal services in a particular matter," not the undisclosed circumstances of the person solicited, and Blalock's testimony created a fact issue (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 15). **What counts as "solicit employment."** **Law Shield (Petitioners):** The court of appeals rewrote section 38.01's definition by treating a hypothetical future occurrence or event as enough, when the statute requires that the communication address an existing or imminent legal matter (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 18, 33). **The employees (Respondents):** Section 38.01 is disjunctive and covers communications arising out of a "particular occurrence or event," not only an existing problem, the active-shooter training was that event, and *Crowley II*, which involved a pitch at a concealed-handgun-license class, supports the result (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 15-16). **Whether the employees have standing.** **Law Shield (Petitioners):** A person who admits having no need for legal services suffered no concrete injury and cannot recover statutory damages under a statute meant to protect prospective clients from overreaching (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 18-19, 33). **The employees (Respondents):** Section 82.0651(c) gives a cause of action to a person solicited in violation of the barratry laws even if the person did not sign a contract, and the injury the statute protects is the unlawful solicitation itself (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 16). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Law Shield argued that the decision effectively bans all in-person advertising of legal services, conflicts with this Court's 2022 amendments to Rules 7.01 and 7.03 and with the Fourteenth Court's own inconsistent standards, implicates commercial-speech rights, chills lawful advertising and invites opportunistic litigation, and that the undisputed facts make this an ideal vehicle (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 19, 34-35). The employees responded that the court of appeals faithfully applied the governing text and its own precedent and that the opinion presents no conflict or unsettled issue requiring review (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 17). ## Practice Area Tags legal-ethics, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston); granted September 4, 2026. Oral argument: February 10, 2027. ## Amicus Involvement None noted --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-1108. 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.