Representative Image (AI-generated)
How the fee dispute began
Livesay sent letters to the firms on December 30, 2016, stating that he could no longer represent the affected clients. His licence was suspended in January 2017 and later revoked by the Texas Supreme Court on July 6, 2018. In 2022, Livesay filed a lawsuit seeking payment for seven client matters. In October 2024, the firms filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Livesay’s claims. The trial court granted the motion in April 2025 and issued a final judgment in December 2025 in favour of the firms.
He also sought a declaratory judgment concerning his right to collect fees and expenses, as well as reimbursement of expenses he said he had incurred while working on the cases. Losing a professional licence does not necessarily mean losing the right to payment for work already completed. That question became central to a legal dispute involving a former Texas attorney who sought fees and expenses from other law firms for seven client cases he had referred to them while he was still licensed. The firms argued that paying him after his disbarment would violate professional conduct rules and a Texas Supreme Court order. A lower court accepted their position, dismissing his claims, but an appeals court has now found that the evidence did not establish the firms’ defence. The firms subsequently entered into new representation agreements directly with those clients, removing Livesay from their representation. His claims included breach of contract, quantum meruit, money had and received, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and breach of fiduciary duty. The firms denied that he was entitled to the money. They argued that he had not completed his responsibilities before losing his licence and that paying him would violate professional conduct rules and the Texas Supreme Court’s revocation order. They relied partly on an affidavit from Kyle Farrar, a founding partner, stating that settlement checks for the disputed cases had not been issued until after Livesay’s suspension or disbarment. Livesay appealed, arguing that the firms had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he was legally barred from receiving the fees and expenses. A central issue was whether a disbarred attorney could still receive payment for work completed while legally practising. Cherry, which recognised that an attorney who completed the required legal work before being suspended or disbarred could still recover an agreed referral fee. However, the court also considered Royden v. Ardoin, which established that disbarment before completing a contingent-fee agreement could amount to voluntary abandonment, preventing the attorney from recovering payment for unfinished work.
The appeals court referred to earlier Texas decisions, including Lee v.
In its November 5, 2026, opinion in R Kent Livesay and The Law Office of R Kent Livesay, PC v. The ruling , available on Justia under docket number 14-25-00393-CV, did not establish that Livesay was entitled to the disputed money. Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball, LLP, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favour of the law firms and sent the case back for further proceedings. Instead, the court concluded that the firms had not produced sufficient evidence to prove that his recovery was legally barred or that he had failed to complete his responsibilities before his licence was suspended.