Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will no longer contest the lawsuit brought against him by a group of former employees who accused him of wrongful firings in 2020.
“Now, in the best interests of the State of Texas, the Office of the Attorney General is moving on from an employment lawsuit against the agency by four employees that presents the same issues brought against Attorney General Paxton in the impeachment trial,” the agency said in a news release. “The OAG has made the determination that these bad-faith efforts to prolong legal proceedings are an unjustifiable waste of taxpayer resources and an intolerable distraction that risks compromising state business.”
The plaintiffs in the more than three-year-old lawsuit accused their former boss of bribery and abuse of power in connection with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer, who is under federal indictment on a dozen charges related to his business dealings.
Mr. Paxton has adamantly denied the accusations made by the former employees.
Nearly a year ago, the parties reached a tentative $3.3 million settlement, which he asked the Texas Legislature to fund. The request sparked a House committee investigation that led to his impeachment.
Last September, following eight days of testimony, a Senate jury acquitted Mr. Paxton on 16 articles of impeachment and dismissed four that were held in abeyance.
Despite the jury’s acquittal, the plaintiffs promised to continue their lawsuit against the state’s top lawyer. The plaintiffs include David Maxwell, former head of law enforcement; Mark Penley, former head of criminal justice; James Brickman, former policy director; and Mark Vassar, former deputy general for legal counsel.
Later the same month, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the former employees could move forward with their case.
After multiple attempts to block the Travis County lawsuit, Mr. Paxton sought a permanent injunction against his former staffers in nearby Burnet County, arguing that the settlement reached in February 2023 should be enforced.
Ordered to Testify
In December 2023, District Judge Jan Sofier ordered the attorney general and three of his top aides to testify under oath in the original lawsuit.Attorneys for the former staffers subpoenaed Mr. Paxton, along with First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Leslie French Henneke, and Senior Adviser Michelle Smith.
Now, nearly a month after the judge’s decision, Mr. Paxton’s office has decided to stop fighting the lawsuit.
“There is clearly no length to which Ken Paxton will go to avoid putting his hand on the Bible and telling the truth, including confessing to violating the whistleblower act and opening up the states’ coffers to an uncontested judgment,” Mr. Turner said.
Lawyer TJ Turner, who is representing Mr. Maxwell, said he is reviewing the filing and evaluating legal options for his client.
“It does not end the case,” said Tom Nesbitt, a lawyer for Mr. Brickman.
One of the terms of the preliminary deal was that Mr. Paxton would apologize for calling his former staffers “rogue employees.”
But in Thursday’s statement, he again dubbed the group “rogue former employees,” adding that it would be up to the Texas Legislature to decide whether or not to pay them.
“The OAG chose to settle this case last year, with the full participation of the plaintiffs and their attorneys. But the plaintiffs backed out of that settlement after I was fully acquitted,“ Mr. Paxton said in a statement on Thursday. ”Instead of moving on with terms mutually agreeable to both sides, these rogue former employees disavowed their own settlement and escalated their crusade against me.
“It has become increasingly clear their objective is not to resolve an employment lawsuit but to sabotage my leadership and this agency, ultimately aiming to undermine Texas as the nation’s leader against the federal government’s unlawful policies,” he continued.
“Further, whether a verdict will be funded in whole, in part, or not at all would be determined entirely by the Legislature, which has expressed its own negative opinion about the strength of the plaintiffs’ case by explicitly refusing to use taxpayer dollars to fund the plaintiffs’ disproven claims.”
