Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Petitioner v. Barry Robert Benton, Respondent

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that Rule 3.06(d) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules is not facially void for vagueness after narrowing the meaning of “harass” and striking the “embarrass” provision, and that the rule does not violate the First Amendment, overbreadth, or equal‑protection challenges. The case was remanded for a new punishment hearing consistent with the severed provision.