J. Bradley Compere aka Brad was recently at the center of a rather egregious case of malpractive and railroading, the whole mess leading to the legalized robbery of a home in Austin, Texas. It involved a client who needed help against a woman who had settled in a house he owned in town, claiming ownership by means of a non-legal document she obtained through deception. The law-suit started well enough, with several court orders compelling the woman to vacate the premise. It began to go awry, however, when the client began to suspect Compere was trying to milk more money than the case warranted. The client (who at the time also had a medical issue to tend to) temporarily put the suit on hold, trying to decide what to do with his doubts. Compere, however, inexplicably, pushed through the law suit, by setting a hearing, giving notice to the Defendant, but not to his own client: to make things worse, he arrived in the court room 2 hours late, thereby putting his client at risk of a default judgment. At court, he claimed falsely to not know where to reach the client. What more, this lawyer also annulled an attachment to a contempt of court order (issued against the defendant who had failed to vacate the house when required to do so), which attachment required the arrest of the defendant, in case of further non-compliance. When informed of the actions, the client called Compere, who tried to justify his action with the odd claim that he had an ethical obligation to pursue this law-suit: how is it ethical for a lawyer to fail to inform a client of a hearing which the client had not authorized?. The professional association between the two was naturally severed. Since then, the most troublingly bizarre developments occured - which I will limit to the last, in order to keep this brief. Compere's former client received a summons to appear in court, on such short notice he could not find a lawyer with time on hand. The judge greeted him with the sarcastic words: ""glad you could find the time to appear; we missed you during the many previous hearings."" What was going on? The client knew of one hearing for which he had not been served notice. Now several? To keep it short, this judge ordered him to sign over the house to that woman, for incomparably less than its market value. A lawyer for real estate people loaning the money to the defendant was on hand (despite shaky legal grounds for his presence), instructing the judge on what to require of the plaintiff. While forcing the legalized extortion, the judge kept sarcastically quoting Compere's false allegation that he had not known where to reach the client:: in short, justifying the theft of a home, on the basis of failure to appear to hearings, all but one of which he did not even know had occured, and for none of which he was served notice to appear.
The Defendant, who was awarded the house, is indigent, with no means of support other than welfare and FDIC. She has occasionally lived & slept on the street. It has not yet been ascertained if the payment on the loan granted her are so high she will not be able to meet them. If three months from now she is back on the streets & the home repossessed by the loaners, then it will be known for sure that a handful of lawyers, with the complicity of a local judge, have used an indigent person as means to steal a house