Slashdot Mirror

Her real name is Candice Lee Leonard. Here's a link to her profile on the Texas bar website.

Good idea. A little digging (comparing her Linked In profile with the profiles of lawyers with the first name "Candice" registered on the Texas State Bar) suggests that her name was Candice Leonard at the time she registered with the bar:

http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=198610

Her address listed on that profile (2210 Village Dale Ave, Houston, TX 77059) is owned by an Alicia Schwager. Another search leads to a random website that apparently collects Texas marriage records, which says that Candice Leonard and Richard Schwager were married November 6, 1999--two years after she graduated from law school:

http://marriagesintexas.com/1999/142906.html

Her state bar profile (the first link above) lists her as eligible to practice, with no disciplinary history.

Maybe I should go file a complaint...

(posting anonymously in case Candice Schwager decides to come after me. Seriously.)

Yes, tyvm. This: http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451

Anything here of use?

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home

Feel free to inform them. IANAL so I don't know the procedure, but simply informing them then allowing them to decide for themselves can't hurt:

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home

"The fact that Shwagger went straight to threats of lawsuits" is interesting since she knew she had no grounds. Anyone care to weigh in on if her conduct might be actionable?

Here's the Texas State Bar Association. IANAL, so I don't know the best way to make them aware of her unprofessional conduct:

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home

First: since when does Slashdot give a fuck about people's copyrights?

Second: file a complaint against the bitch. It's against the rules in every state to threaten frivolous legal action. She doesn't have to be *your* lawyer for you to do this.

New Mexico, actually:
http://www.texasbar.com/saywhat/weblog/2007/02/may-1996-all-purpose-brief-in.html

You must not open any lawyer magazines. The Texas Bar Journal (a monthly publication) has dozens of disbarments, suspensions, and censures every month. Here is June's (PDF).

Perhaps, and I suspect that engineer after engineer will testify before the legislative committee considering this matter. However, the State of Texas regulates a number of professions, from lawyers and nurses to dentists and doctors. Part of that regulation is deciding who may bestow upon themselves the title traditionally associated with that profession.

As for engineers, their profession is regulated by this chapter of the Texas Occupations Code. According to section 1001.002, an "engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state. See section 1001.003(c) for a thorough definition of the "practice of engineering."

Now, the Houston Chronicle article alludes to an Attorney General's opinion letter which prompted all of this controversy. The Attorney General interprets the law, and his interpretation in this case was apparently solicited by a legislator. For the sake of the discussion, I have appended it below:

State of Texas

Opinion No. JC-0525
July 9, 2002

Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act permits in-house engineers to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

The Honorable Warren Chisum
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in- house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer."' Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identifi