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

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that the attorney disciplinary rule 3.06(d) does not violate the First Amendment or equal‑protection guarantees, and is not void for vagueness except for its “embarrass” provision, which is facially vague and severed. The Court affirmed that the rule’s “harass” and “influence” clauses are sufficiently clear when read with an objective‑reasonableness construction of the word “calculated.” Accordingly, the trial court’s suspension was reversed and the case remanded for a new punishment hearing.