Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Defendant Gibson¶
Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 46 · 2026-04-07 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 1 of 17
PageID 1416
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§ Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
v.
§
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
§
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
§
Defendants.
§
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT DARREN G.
GIBSON OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE SEPARATE
REPRESENTATION, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Plaintiff used generative artificial intelligence as a research and drafting aid in preparing
this brief. All citations, assertions, and arguments have been independently verified. Plaintiff
takes full responsibility for the content.
TO THE HONORABLE JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to its inherent authority to
regulate the conduct of attorneys appearing before it, to disqualify Assistant Attorney General
Scott Daniel Smith from representing Defendant Darren G. Gibson in his individual capacity, or
in the alternative, to require Defendant Gibson to retain independent counsel. In support, Plaintiff
submits the following brief.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 3
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................................4
A. The Parties and Their Representation...................................................................................4
B. Gibson's Contractual Relationship with TTUHSC...............................................................5
C. The Divergence of Interests.................................................................................................. 6
1
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 2 of 17
PageID 1417
III. LEGAL STANDARD...............................................................................................................7
IV. ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................................8
A. The Attorney General Lacks Statutory Authority
to Represent Gibson in His Individual Capacity.....................................................................8
B. The Joint Representation Creates an Actual,
Irreconcilable Conflict of Interest......................................................................................... 11
1. The Structural Conflict..................................................................................................... 11
2. The Conflict Has Materialized..........................................................................................12
3. The Conflict Cannot Be Cured by Consent......................................................................13
C. Timeliness and Scope..........................................................................................................14
V. RELIEF REQUESTED..........................................................................................................15
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE.............................................................................................16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................................................17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Dunton v. County of Suffolk,
729 F.2d 903 (2d Cir. 1984).........................................................................................................12
FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.,
50 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................... 7
Filarsky v. Delia,
566 U.S. 377 (2012)...............................................................................................................11, 13
Horaist v. Doctor's Hosp. of Opelousas,
255 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2001)......................................................................................................... 7
In re American Airlines, Inc.,
972 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1992)......................................................................................................... 7
In re Dresser Indus., Inc.,
972 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1992)......................................................................................................... 7
In re Gopman,
531 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976)....................................................................................................... 15
In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig.,
530 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1976)........................................................................................................... 7
Kevlik v. Goldstein,
724 F.2d 844 (1st Cir. 1984)........................................................................................................14
Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.,
436 U.S. 658 (1978)...........................................................................................................6, 11, 12
Perillo v. Johnson,
79 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 1996)......................................................................................................... 13
Police Officers Fed'n of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis,
488 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)......................................................................................11
2
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 3 of 17
PageID 1418
United States v. Kitchin,
592 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1979)......................................................................................................... 7
United States v. Valdez,
No. 5:22-cr-00023-H, Doc. 134 (N.D. Tex. 2022)........................................................................ 8
Wheat v. United States,
486 U.S. 153 (1988).................................................................................................................7, 14
Woods v. Covington County Bank,
537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976)......................................................................................................... 7
Statutes and Rules
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 104.001................................................................................... 8, 16
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 104.002......................................................................................... 9
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 104.004......................................................................................... 8
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 108.001......................................................................................... 9
Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22...................................................................................................................9
Tex. Gov't Code § 402.021............................................................................................................ 10
Tex. Gov't Code § 402.0212..........................................................................................................10
1 Tex. Admin. Code § 57.1(6)......................................................................................................... 9
Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.06.................................................................7, 12, 13, 14, 16
ABA Model R. Prof. Conduct 1.7....................................................................................................7
Other Authorities
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. MW-475 (1982).............................................................................................10
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. DM-0409 (1996).............................................................................................9
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. DM-0457 (1997).............................................................................................9
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. GA-0523 (2007)............................................................................................10
Tex. Ethics Op. 579 (2007)............................................................................................................14
I. INTRODUCTION
Darren G. Gibson is a private attorney who held $393,000 in contracts with the institution
that is also his co-defendant. The Attorney General now represents both of them — the
institution and the contractor — through the same lawyer, in a case where a central claim is that
the contractual relationship between them denied him due process. In 33 pages of defense
briefing, AAG Smith never once addressed the contracts, never engaged the dual-role allegation,
and never confronted the conflict-of-interest claim central to Plaintiff's case. A significant due
3
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 4 of 17
PageID 1419
process factual allegation in the complaint received no response. That silence is not an accident.
It is the conflict materializing now.
This motion presents two independent grounds for relief, either sufficient alone.
First, the Attorney General lacks statutory authority to represent Gibson. Gibson is not a
state employee. He is an independent contractor whose own Outside Counsel Contract — a
template promulgated by the AG's office — defines him as such. Chapter 104 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code enumerates the persons the AG must defend. Independent
contractors are not among them. Chapter 108 explicitly excludes them. The AG's representation
of Gibson is ultra vires.
Second, even if the AG had authority, the simultaneous representation of TTUHSC and
Gibson creates an irreconcilable conflict. A zealous advocate for TTUHSC would distance the
institution from Gibson's conduct. A zealous advocate for Gibson would implicate the institution
that structured, approved, and directed the dual-role arrangement. AAG Smith can do neither.
His briefing confirms it.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Parties and Their Representation.
AAG Smith, of the Office of the Attorney General's General Litigation Division,
represents all named Defendants who have appeared: TTUHSC; Amanda McSween (official and
individual); Lauren Cobbs, M.D. (official and individual); Simon Williams, Ph.D. (official and
individual); Tamara Mancini (official capacity); Mia Myers (official capacity); Lori RiceSpearman, Ph.D. (official capacity); Darrin D'Agostino, D.O. (official capacity); Darren G.
Gibson (individual capacity); Jennifer Wilson, M.D. (individual capacity); and Rachel Forbes,
MBA (individual capacity). See Dkt. Nos. 27, 38.
4
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 5 of 17
PageID 1420
B. Gibson's Contractual Relationship with TTUHSC.
Through Littler Mendelson, P.C. and later Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Gibson held
eight Outside Counsel Contracts with the Texas Tech University System spanning 2020 through
2027, totaling $393,000 in authorized contract value:
OCC No. 2020-768-0641
OCC No. 2020-768-0674
OCC No. 2022-768-0123
OCC No. 2022-768-0124
OCC No. 2024-768-0010
OCC No. 2024-768-0018
OCC No. 2025-768-0071
OCC No. 2026-768-0034
See App. 3-6, 48-49.
Gibson's contract defines his status: "Outside Counsel agrees and acknowledges that
during the OCC Term, Outside Counsel and Outside Counsel's subcontractors are independent
contractors of Agency or the State of Texas and are not employees of Agency or the State of
Texas." OCC No. 2024-768-0010, § 8.1 (App. 4); see also OCC No. 2025-768-0071, § 8.1
(containing identical language). He is "solely and entirely responsible for [his] acts and
omissions." Id. § 8.1.1.
The contract also defines his role. Addendum A provides that Outside Counsel will assist
TTUHSC with policy matters "including providing advice regarding Title IX law and regulations
and potentially serving as a hearing officer in live hearings required by Title IX and/or the
University." OCC No. 2024-768-0010, Addendum A (App. 6); see also OCC No. 2025-7680071, Addendum A (containing substantially identical language). The dual role — outside
counsel and hearing officer — was designed into the engagement.
5
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 6 of 17
PageID 1421
On December 11, 2023, Gibson presided as the purportedly "independent" hearing officer
in Plaintiff's student conduct proceedings while holding active contracts with the prosecuting
institution. See App. 3-6.
C. The Divergence of Interests.
Plaintiff's central claim against Gibson is that his simultaneous roles as TTUHSC's paid
counsel and hearing officer created a disqualifying conflict that denied Plaintiff due process. This
claim places TTUHSC and Gibson on opposite sides of a fault line.
TTUHSC's interest is to distance itself from Gibson — to argue it relied on his
independence, that Gibson should have disclosed the conflict, and that any error was his.
Whether TTUHSC invokes sovereign immunity or argues Gibson's conduct was not "official
policy or custom" under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the
defense depends on separating institution from individual. Even a sovereign immunity defense
requires TTUHSC to characterize Gibson as an independent contractor acting outside state
authority — the very characterization that undermines Gibson's qualified immunity defense,
which depends on showing he acted within the scope of an institutional engagement.
Gibson's interest is the opposite: to show TTUHSC knew about and approved the dualrole arrangement, that his contracts were publicly filed through the AG's office, and that he acted
within the scope of his engagement. This is his strongest basis for qualified immunity and
indemnification.
A zealous advocate for TTUHSC would distance the institution from Gibson. A zealous
advocate for Gibson would implicate the institution. AAG Smith can do neither.
6
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 7 of 17
PageID 1422
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts possess inherent authority to regulate attorneys appearing before them,
including the power to disqualify counsel. In re Dresser Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir.
1992). The court considers the local rules, the ABA Model Rules, and state disciplinary rules as
"useful guides" but not controlling standards. Id. at 544; see also FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50
F.3d 1304, 1312 (5th Cir. 1995).
Disqualification is warranted where a reasonable possibility of specifically identifiable
impropriety exists and the interest in ethical practice outweighs the party's right to counsel of
choice. Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804, 813 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v.
Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1979). The movant bears the burden. Horaist v. Doctor's
Hosp. of Opelousas, 255 F.3d 261, 266 (5th Cir. 2001). Under Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.06(b)
(2), representation is prohibited where it "reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited
by the lawyer's or law firm's responsibilities to another client...." This standard requires a
reasonable appearance of adverse limitation, not proof of actual prejudice.
Plaintiff has standing because the conflict prejudices him by suppressing the adversarial
dynamic between co-defendants whose interests diverge on the central issue. See In re American
Airlines, 972 F.2d at 610 ("[A] motion to disqualify counsel is the proper method for a partylitigant to bring the issues of conflict of interest or breach of ethical duties to the attention of the
court."); ABA Model Rule 1.7, cmt. 15. The Court also has independent supervisory authority to
address conflicts sua sponte. In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig., 530 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.
1976); Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988). This Court has exercised that
authority, disqualifying counsel whose joint representation posed "an intolerable risk to both the
7
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 8 of 17
PageID 1423
defendants' rights to effective counsel and the integrity of the judicial system." United States v.
Valdez, No. 5:22-cr-00023-H, Doc. 134 (N.D. Tex. 2022).
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Attorney General Lacks Statutory Authority to Represent Gibson in His Individual
Capacity.
1. Chapter 104's Enumerated Coverage.
Chapter 104 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code establishes the AG's duty to
defend persons sued for conduct within the scope of state service. Section 104.001 enumerates
the covered persons:
(1) Employees, board members, and officers of state agencies;
(2) Former employees, board members, and officers;
(3) Licensed physicians, psychiatrists, or racing officials
performing services under contract;
(3-a) Licensed phlebotomists performing services under contract
with TDCJ;
(4) Chaplains performing services under contract with TDCJ or
TJJD;
(5) Persons on governing boards at a university's request;
(6) State contractors who signed waste manifests;
(7) Estates of covered persons.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 104.001.
Section 104.004(a) makes the duty mandatory but bounded: "The attorney general shall
defend a public servant or estate listed in Section 104.001." The AG's authority extends to
persons "listed in Section 104.001" and no further.
Outside legal counsel is not listed. Across three decades of amendments (1987, 2007,
2015), the Legislature extended Chapter 104 to specific categories of state contractors — adding
physicians, psychiatrists, racing officials, phlebotomists, and chaplains — each tied to a specific
state agency contract. It never added outside legal counsel. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
8
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 9 of 17
PageID 1424
2. Chapters 104 and 108 Exclude Independent Contractors.
Even for listed persons, Section 104.002 limits coverage to claims where the court does
not find "bad faith, with conscious indifference or reckless disregard." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 104.002(2). Gibson knowingly presided as an "independent" hearing officer while
holding active contracts with the prosecuting institution. See App. 3-6. Even if Gibson were a
listed person — which he is not — the nature of these claims may independently place them
outside Chapter 104's coverage.
Chapter 108 removes any ambiguity. Section 108.001 defines "public servant" and
explicitly excludes "an independent contractor, an agent or employee of an independent
contractor, or another person who performs a contract for a unit of government." The exclusion
is categorical.
3. Gibson's Contract and the AG's Own Rules Confirm the Exclusion.
Gibson's OCC — a template promulgated by the AG's office — provides at § 8.1:
"Outside Counsel agrees and acknowledges that during the OCC Term, Outside Counsel and
Outside Counsel's subcontractors are independent contractors of Agency or the State of Texas
and are not employees of Agency or the State of Texas." App. 4. The AG cannot define Gibson
as a non-employee in the contract it administers and then claim authority to defend him as one.
The AG's administrative rules confirm this. 1 Texas Administrative Code § 57.1(6)
defines "Outside Counsel" as separate from "a full-time employee of the Agency or the Office of
the Attorney General." App. 8. In Opinion DM-0409 (1996), the AG's own office held that an
independent contractor — one "not subject to the center's right to control the details of the work"
— is not an "employee" and is not entitled to state indemnification or defense. App. 11-19.
Opinion DM-0457 (1997) extended this reasoning, concluding that even unpaid volunteers fall
9
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 10 of 17
PageID 1425
outside Chapter 104 because they are not among the enumerated categories. App. 21-28. If
unpaid volunteers are excluded, paid independent contractors are a fortiori excluded. Every piece
of evidence that places Gibson outside the AG's protection — the contract template, the
administrative rule, and the advisory opinions — was created by the AG's own office.
4. No Alternative Statutory Basis Exists.
The AG may argue that the representation rests not on Chapter 104 but on the AG's
general authority under Texas Government Code § 402.021, which authorizes the AG in actions
"in which the state is interested." This argument fails for three reasons.
First, a § 1983 individual-capacity claim against an independent contractor does not make
the state a party. Article IV, § 22 of the Texas Constitution limits the AG to suits in which "the
State may be a party." Gibson, sued individually, is not the State. The whole point of individualcapacity liability is to impose personal responsibility beyond the state's protection.
Second, reading § 402.021 to authorize defense of any person in any case where the state
has some interest would render Chapter 104's careful enumeration meaningless. Across three
decades of amendments, the Legislature extended Chapter 104 to cover specific categories of
contractors — physicians, psychiatrists, racing officials, phlebotomists, and chaplains. If the AG
could bypass the list entirely through § 402.021, those amendments would have been
unnecessary. The AG's own opinions confirm this boundary: in GA-0523 (2007), the AG
concluded that even a criminal district attorney — an elected constitutional officer — falls
outside Chapter 104 because the jurisdiction is local. If a constitutionally created public officer is
not covered, a private law firm is not covered either.
Third, Section 402.0212 gives the AG authority to approve OCCs and review invoices —
not to represent outside counsel as a litigation client. And in MW-475 (1982), the AG concluded
10
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 11 of 17
PageID 1426
that state universities lack authority to execute contractual indemnity agreements with their
contractors. If TTUHSC itself cannot contractually indemnify Gibson, the AG cannot
unilaterally provide him a defense.
The AG may also invoke Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012), where the Supreme
Court held that a private attorney retained by a municipality could assert qualified immunity. But
Filarsky addressed whether a contractor may raise qualified immunity as a personal defense —
not whether the government must furnish that contractor with counsel. Nothing in Filarsky
suggests that a contractor's ability to assert immunity entitles him to representation by the
sovereign's own lawyers. Gibson may assert qualified immunity. He must retain his own counsel
to do so.
B. The Joint Representation Creates an Actual, Irreconcilable Conflict of Interest.
Even if the AG's representation were authorized, the simultaneous representation of
TTUHSC and Gibson creates an actual conflict requiring disqualification or separate
representation.
1. The Structural Conflict.
When an institution and its agent are co-defendants in a § 1983 action, their liability
theories structurally diverge. The institution's defense — whether grounded in sovereign
immunity or Monell's requirement that liability attach only to "official policy or custom," 436
U.S. at 694 — depends on distancing itself from the individual. The individual's defense depends
on showing institutional knowledge and approval. See Police Officers Fed'n of Minneapolis v.
City of Minneapolis, 488 N.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) ("there is an inherent
conflict of interest between a city and its police officer when both are defendants in a section
1983 action and the police officer is sued in the officer's individual capacity"). That court
11
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 12 of 17
PageID 1427
reversed disqualification only because the city's indemnification agreement eliminated the
officer's personal exposure — a distinction inapplicable here, where Gibson is an unindemnified
independent contractor.
The most instructive case on this factual pattern is Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d
903 (2d Cir. 1984). The county attorney represented both the county and an individual officer in
a § 1983 action. During closing, the county attorney argued the officer was "acting as an irate
husband rather than a police officer" — serving the county's Monell defense while destroying the
officer's. The Second Circuit reversed, finding the dual representation "not only prejudiced [the
individual defendant], it may also have resulted in an improper benefit to the municipal
defendants." Id. at 910.
The parallel is direct. TTUHSC's interest is to show Gibson acted independently.
Gibson's interest is to show TTUHSC structured, approved, and directed the arrangement — that
his contracts were publicly filed, the engagement expressly contemplated hearing officer service,
and the institution selected him with full knowledge. These positions cannot be simultaneously
advanced by the same advocate.
2. The Conflict Has Materialized.
Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.06(b)(2) prohibits representation where it "reasonably appears
to be or become adversely limited" by responsibilities to another client. That standard is met.
In 33 pages of defense briefing — a 22-page Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27) and an 11-page
Reply (Dkt. 38) — AAG Smith never addresses Gibson's $393,000 in OCC contracts, never
engages the dual-role allegation, and never confronts the conflict-of-interest claim central to
Plaintiff's case. One of the most significant due process factual allegations in the complaint
receives no response — not in the Motion to Dismiss, and not in the Reply filed three weeks
12
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 13 of 17
PageID 1428
later. This is not strategic silence on a peripheral issue at the pleading stage; it is the systematic
avoidance of the factual allegation most damaging to the institution Smith also represents. Yet
Smith's own exhibit — the Student Conduct Board's findings (Dkt. 27-8) — describes Gibson as
"an outside attorney," confirming the contractor status that Smith's briefing never addresses.
Gibson's strongest defense is that TTUHSC knew about and ratified his dual role. A
zealous advocate for Gibson would have argued that the contracts were publicly filed through the
AG's own oversight system, that Addendum A expressly authorized the hearing officer role
(App. 6), and that TTUHSC selected Gibson with full knowledge of the dual engagement —
establishing institutional ratification as the basis for qualified immunity. A zealous advocate
would also have made the Filarsky-specific argument that Gibson, as a private attorney retained
by a government entity, is entitled to qualified immunity on different grounds than salaried
employees — Gibson's strongest individual shield. Smith has raised none of these arguments. He
cannot, because doing so would implicate his other client. Under Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441,
447 (5th Cir. 1996), the adverse effect of a conflict is established where "some plausible defense
strategy or tactic might have been pursued but was not, because of the conflict of interest." That
standard is met.
3. The Conflict Cannot Be Cured by Consent.
Under Rule 1.06(c), a conflict may be waived only if "the lawyer reasonably believes the
representation of each client will not be materially affected." Comment 7 imposes an outer limit:
"when a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the
representation under the circumstances, the lawyer involved should not ask for such agreement."
Given the structural divergence on the central issue, no disinterested lawyer would advise either
client to consent. There is no indication in the record that Gibson has been informed of the
13
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 14 of 17
PageID 1429
conflict or that he has provided consent to joint representation. Gibson is himself a practicing
attorney. If independently advised, he would likely recognize that his strongest defense —
institutional ratification of the dual-role arrangement, supported by publicly filed OCC contracts
and Addendum A's express authorization of hearing officer service — is precisely the defense
AAG Smith has failed to raise. The conflict does not merely create a theoretical risk; it has
already deprived Gibson of the arguments most favorable to his individual-capacity defense.
The Court retains independent authority to reject waivers. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162
("[W]here a court justifiably finds an actual conflict of interest, there can be no doubt that it may
decline a proffer of waiver, and insist that defendants be separately represented."). Under the
Texas Disciplinary Rules, a government legal office constitutes a single "firm" for conflict
purposes. See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, Terminology ("Firm" or "Law firm" includes
lawyers "in a unit of government"); Tex. Ethics Op. 579 (2007) (holding that all lawyers in a
government legal office are subject to imputed conflict rules under Rule 1.06(f)). Any conflict
affecting AAG Smith is imputed across the AG's office.
C. Timeliness and Scope.
This motion is filed at the earliest stage — before discovery, before a scheduling order,
before any trial date. Addressing the conflict now avoids the far greater disruption of midlitigation disqualification. The full scope of the conflict became apparent through FERPA
inspection, TPIA productions, and a Legislative Budget Board database search conducted during
and after the MTD briefing. See Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 848-49 (1st Cir. 1984) (the
need for upholding high ethical standards "far outweighs the problems caused by the delay in
filing the disqualification motion").
14
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 15 of 17
PageID 1430
This motion is grounded in documented, verifiable facts — $393,000 in OCC contracts
available in the Legislative Budget Board database (App. 48-49) and reproduced in the Appendix
(App. 3-6). Plaintiff brings it to the Court's attention as both a right and an obligation. In re
Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 263 (5th Cir. 1976) (an attorney who discovers a possible ethical
violation "is not only authorized but is in fact obligated to bring the problem to that court's
attention").
This motion does not seek to disqualify the AG from representing the State. The AG may
continue to represent TTUHSC and all other Defendants. Plaintiff asks only that Gibson — a
practicing attorney with access to the resources of his law firm — retain independent counsel for
his individual-capacity defense. The relief requested does not seek a continuance, does not delay
any pending deadline, and does not disrupt any other Defendant's representation. Gibson's
retention of independent counsel can proceed in parallel with the existing litigation schedule.
Conversely, if the conflict continues and Gibson receives an adverse judgment, he will have a
built-in basis to challenge that judgment — arguing that conflicted counsel failed to advance his
strongest defense. Addressing the conflict now protects Gibson's rights, protects the integrity of
the proceedings, and protects the record from collateral attack. Granting this motion costs
nothing. Denying it risks everything.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
(1) Disqualify AAG Smith from representing Defendant Darren G. Gibson in his
individual capacity, and require Gibson to retain independent counsel within 30 days;
15
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 16 of 17
PageID 1431
(2) Find that Defendant Gibson, as an independent contractor not listed in Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code § 104.001, falls outside the scope of the Attorney General's
statutory authority to represent; and
(3) In the alternative, order AAG Smith to demonstrate the statutory basis for the
Attorney General's representation of Gibson and to certify that Gibson has provided
informed consent to joint representation after full disclosure of the conflict described
herein, as required by Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.06(c).
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin N. Bass, PhD, MS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Telephone: 512-333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
VERIFICATION
I, Kevin N. Bass, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the factual statements in the foregoing motion and brief are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that the documents included in the
accompanying appendix are true and correct copies of the originals.
Executed on April 7, 2026.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), on March 5, 2026, Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass contacted
Assistant Attorney General Scott Daniel Smith (counsel for all Defendants) by email to confer
16
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 46
Filed 04/07/26
Page 17 of 17
PageID 1432
regarding this motion. On March 9, 2026, AAG Smith responded that the motion is opposed. The
parties were unable to reach agreement. This motion is opposed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 7, 2026, a true and correct copy of this motion and brief was filed
with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, and served on all
counsel of record via the Court's CM/ECF system.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
Plaintiff, Pro Se
17