Ethical Concerns and Conflicts of Interest

In January 2023, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins personally administered the oath of office to the incumbent. During the ceremony, Jenkins publicly referred to him as “my friend and my lawyer” and said he “really wanted to swear that one in.”

Jenkins had previously hired the incumbent as his personal attorney to sue Texas Governor Greg Abbott on behalf of Dallas County during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the swearing-in, Jenkins also celebrated that the new Commissioners Court was now fully represented by what he called “true progressives, noting that the Texas Democratic party of old that once controlled elections had a more conservative flavor."

This close personal relationship between the incumbent and the leader of the Commissioners Court creates the clear appearance of insider access and raises serious questions about whether he can provide independent oversight.

Source: Dallas Morning News, January 1, 2023

The incumbent has a serious and ongoing conflict of interest. Before becoming commissioner, he personally represented County Judge Clay Jenkins in defending some of the most aggressive government restrictions imposed during COVID-19 — including the banning of in-person worship services, mask mandates, and extended shelter-in-place orders. He then ran for and won a seat on the very Commissioners Court that oversees the courts where his law firm continues to practice.

Source: Texas Scorecard, May 13, 2020

The incumbent represented County Judge Clay Jenkins in defending orders that banned in-person worship services in Dallas County, imposed mask mandates, and sought to extend strict shelter-in-place orders. These actions restricted religious liberty, shut down small businesses, and imposed significant burdens on families across District 2. Rather than standing against the expansion of government power during a crisis, the incumbent chose to defend it.

Source: Texas Scorecard, April 9, 2020

Even as some members of the Commissioners Court pushed back against Judge Jenkins’ unilateral exercise of emergency powers, the incumbent continued to represent Jenkins in court. This included defending Jenkins’ authority at a time when other commissioners sought to require court approval before further extending restrictions. This record shows the incumbent chose to align himself with concentrated government authority rather than with efforts to impose checks and accountability on that power.

Source: Texas Scorecard, April 16, 2020

The incumbent’s law firm continues to practice in the justice, statutory county, and district courts in Dallas County. The Commissioners Court controls the budget and funding for those courts. Texas State Bar Ethics Opinion 530 makes clear that this creates a conflict of interest — not only for the commissioner, but for his entire law firm.

Source: Texas State Bar Ethics Opinion 530 (1999)

As a County Commissioner, the incumbent swore an oath to faithfully execute his duties and defend the Constitution and laws of Texas. He also signed an anti-bribery statement affirming he would not improperly influence his election or appointment. Continuing to maintain an active law practice in the courts his own court funds and oversees — after having represented the County Judge in major litigation involving the exercise of emergency powers — raises serious questions about divided loyalty and whether he can put the public interest above his firm’s financial interests.

Source: Texas Local Government Code § 81.002 and Texas Constitution, Article XVI, § 1

The incumbent used the official District 2 newsletter (paid for by taxpayers) to feature and link to an article published by Fight Back! News, the official newspaper of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization

This screengrab is from the content that was amplified using public resources.

→ Full details on the Radical Associations page.

Source: Fight Back! News – “North Texas speaks out: No war with Iran!” (March 3, 2026)

These conflicts of interest and the defense of expansive government power have been allowed to continue without real accountability because of the 5–0 One-Party Machine on the Commissioners Court. With no real opposition or independent oversight, there has been little pressure to address obvious ethical concerns or to question whether a commissioner’s private legal practice and close personal relationship with the County Judge are compatible with his public duties.

After representing Judge Jenkins in these matters, Dallas County redistricted District 2 in a way that made it significantly more Democrat-leaning. The incumbent then ran against the commissioner who had pushed back against Jenkins’ unilateral power and won in the newly drawn district. This sequence has created the clear appearance of political benefit following his legal work for Jenkins.