Shan'a Wallace

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
In re:
SHAN’A WALLACE,
Debtor.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 26-10649-cgb
Chapter 13
ORDER FOR ATTORNEY BRIAN WEST TO SHOW CAUSE
Background
Attorney Brian West filed this chapter 13 case on behalf of the Debtor, Shan’a
Wallace, on April 10, 2026. On April 22, 2026, Mr. West filed Debtor’s Emergency
Motion to Extend Time to File Required Documents [ECF No. 8] (the “Motion to
Extend”). The Motion to Extend was dismissed for several types of lack of
compliance with local rules. 1 In addition to the listed deficiencies, the Court’s
subsequent review of this filing reveals that the Motion to Extend incorrectly states
when the case was filed; incorrectly states the day that the schedules and statements
were due; incorrectly lists “Shan’a Wallace and Maria A. Garcia” as the debtor on
1 ECF No. 9.
Dated: June 23, 2026.
__________________________________
CHRISTOPHER G. BRADLEY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
________________________________________________________________
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 1 of
10

2
the certificate of service; lists an address for the debtor’s address on the certificate
of service that is different than her address on the docket and thus also appears to be
incorrect; and cites “FRBP 10013(c),” which does not exist, as a legal authority.
Mr. West never filed a corrected motion to extend time. No schedules,
statements, or chapter 13 plan were ever filed in this case.
On May 19, 2026, the Debtor’s case was dismissed for failure to timely file a
plan or schedules.2 On May 28, 2026, the Debtor filed a pro se Motion to Vacate
Dismissal [ECF No. 19]. The Debtor’s motion asked the Court to vacate the
summary dismissal order because of concerns about her attorney.3 In specific, Ms.
Wallace discovered that Mr. West is not licensed to practice in Texas and was
understandably concerned. In fact, Mr. West is apparently licensed to practice in
Alabama and is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas federal courts.
Still, the Court notes that Mr. West has used an address in Spring, Texas, in his
filings, and if he is practicing in Texas outside of the federal courts in which he is
admitted, he may be unlawfully engaging in the practice of law in the state of Texas.4
After a hearing, the Court denied the motion to vacate.5
Legal Standard
This Court has the “inherent authority to discipline an attorney” who appears
before it.6 Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas provide the bankruptcy court
“the power to conduct a disciplinary hearing and discipline the attorneys who
practice before it.”7
2 ECF No. 15.
3 ECF No. 19 at 1.
4 See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 5.05(d), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2,
subtit. G, app. A (Tex. State Bar R. art. X, § 9)).
5 See ECF No. 26.
6 W.D. Tex. Att’y R. AT-7(d); see also Steinberg v. Alvarado (In re Alvarado), No. Civ.SA-03-
CA-0295-RF, 2003 WL 22097092, at *5 (W.D. Tex. July 29, 2003) (“The authority of a
Bankruptcy Judge to order disciplinary sanctions is clear.”). District Court Rule AT-7 undoubtedly
applies to this Court. See In re Luna, Nos. 03-50956, 02-54849, 2004 WL 1618824, at *3 (W.D.
Tex. July 19, 2004) (discussing the application of then-rule AT-1, which is the same text as current
rule AT-7).
7 Cunningham v. Ayers (In re Johnson), 921 F.2d 585, 586–87 (5th Cir. 1991).
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 2 of
10

3
An attorney practicing before this Court is bound by the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas. 8 “For matters not covered by the Texas rules, the
American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct should be
consulted.”9
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that “a judge should
take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood
that . . . a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.”10 Additionally,
a judge in the Western District of Texas may refer an attorney to the District
Disciplinary Committee upon belief that, inter alia, an attorney “has engaged in
conduct that violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct,”
“presents an impediment to the orderly administration of justice or the integrity of
the court,” or “represents a client in such a manner as to raise a serious question
concerning the quality of the attorney’s professional performance.”11
Analysis
A. Mr. West’s Filings [ECF Nos. 23 and 24] appear to breach his ethical
duties.
On June 11, 2026, Mr. West filed Respondent’s Response in Opposition to
Debtor’s Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal (the “Response”) [ECF No. 23]. This
Response was baffling to the Court, because Mr. West is not a “respondent” in this
proceeding–he was listed as the Debtor’s counsel of record in this case.12 Yet Mr.
West’s Response repeatedly explicitly asked this Court to deny the Motion to Vacate
8W.D. Tex. Att’y. R. AT-7(a); but see Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Bright, 6 F.3d 336, 341 (5th Cir. 1993)
(“The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not expressly apply to sanctions in
federal courts, but a federal court may nevertheless hold attorneys accountable to the state code of
professional conduct.” (collecting cases)).
9 W.D. Tex. Att’y. R. AT-7(a).
10 U.S. Judicial Conf., Code of Judicial Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 3(B)(6) (Mar. 2019).
11 W.D. Tex. Att’y. R. AT-7(c)(4), (6), and (7).
12 Mr. West filed as an exhibit an email dated May 22, 2026, that purported to terminate his firm’s
representation of the debtor. Brian West Ex. H, ECF No. 24-8. However, Mr. West never filed a
motion to withdraw in this case. See Bankr. W.D. Tex. R. 9010-1(a). Because this case was
dismissed on May 19, 2026, and Mr. West’s representation of the Debtor did not terminate until
May 22, 2026, it is understandable that he did not file the motion to withdraw at that time.
Therefore, although no motion to withdraw was filed or granted, the Court will presume for
disciplinary purposes that Mr. West no longer represented the Debtor as of May 22, 2026.
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 3 of
10

4
and included a proposed order denying the Motion.13 Mr. West purports to have
withdrawn from representation of the Debtor on May 22, 2026. 14 Even upon
terminating representation, Mr. West still had a duty to “take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect [his] client’s interests,” which in no way included
advocating against the Debtor.15 In addition, under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct, “a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a
matter . . . shall not thereafter use information relating to the representation of the
former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client,
or when the information has become generally known.”16
Mr. West’s response discussed and disclosed his office’s communications
with the Debtor in the course of representation. It also revealed information about
the Debtor’s personal circumstances that Mr. West learned in the course of
representation. Equally concerning to the Court are the exhibits Mr. West filed on
the docket in advance of the hearing.17 Exhibits B–H consist of emails between
Mr. West’s staff and his client, the Debtor. Exhibit K is the affidavit of Mr. West’s
paralegal, which details discussions with the Debtor about the Debtor’s case and
about specific legal advice rendered to the Debtor.
In the hearing, Mr. West himself appeared to backpedal on his Response’s
opposition to the Debtor; to the Court it seemed reasonably likely that he was in fact
unaware of the content of this Response and had not reviewed it prior to its having
been filed, which raises other professional responsibility concerns.18
The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct distinguish between
privileged and unprivileged client information, although both are considered
“confidential information.”19 Privileged information is information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, while unprivileged information is “all information relating
13 ECF No. 23 at 1, ECF No. 23-1. The Response, at times, seems to acknowledge that any claims
of attorney misconduct are “independent from whether the dismissal order should be vacated” and
yet still behaves as if Mr. West is a respondent to the Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 23 at 8.
14 Brian West Ex. H, ECF No. 24-8.
15 See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.16.
16 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.09(c)(1).
17 The exhibits were filed on the docket at ECF No. 24.
18 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b); see also Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 5.03, cmt 1
(holding lawyers responsible for the work product of nonlawyer assistants).
19 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(a).
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 4 of
10

5
to a client or furnished by the client, other than privileged information, acquired by
the lawyer during the course of or by reason of the representation of the client.”20
Whether information is privileged is governed by Texas Rule of Evidence 503
and Federal Rule of Evidence 501.21 The privilege analysis under Federal Rule 501
looks to the common law “as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason
and experience.” 22 “The Fifth Circuit has defined attorney-client privileged
communications as: 1) confidential communications; 2) made to a lawyer or his
subordinate; 3) ‘for the primary purpose of securing either a legal opinion or legal
services, or assistance in some legal proceeding.’”23 A confidential communication
is a communication that was “not intended to be disclosed to third parties other than
parties reasonably necessary for the transmission of the message or to those to whom
disclosure furthers the rendition of legal services.”24
Similarly, Texas Rule of Evidence 503 protects “confidential communications
made to facilitate the rendition of professional legal services to the client.” 25
Confidential communications under Texas Rule 503 are defined as communications
“not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is
made to further the rendition of professional legal services to the client or reasonably
necessary to transmit the communication.”26
Generally, an attorney may not “use confidential information of a former
client to the disadvantage of the former client after the representation has concluded”
unless the client consents or the information “has become generally known.”27 The
prohibition against revealing confidential information has some exceptions. A
lawyer may reveal confidential information to defend himself “in a controversy
between the lawyer and the client” or against “a criminal charge, civil claim, or
disciplinary complaint against the lawyer.”28 A lawyer may reveal unprivileged
client information if the lawyer “has reason to believe it is necessary to do so” to
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Fed. R. Evid. 501.
23 In re Royce Homes, LP, 449 B.R. 709, 723 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2001) (quoting United States v.
Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 974 (5th Cir. 1997)) (citing United States v. Pipkins, 528 F.2d 559, 562
(5th Cir. 1976); Alpert v. Riley, 267 F.R.D. 202, 208 (S.D. Tex. 2010)).
24 Id.
25 Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1).
26 Tex. R. Evid. 503(a)(5).
27 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(b)(3).
28 Id. R. 1.05(c)(5) and (6).
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 5 of
10

6
“defend the lawyer . . . against a claim of wrongful conduct” or “respond to
allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client.”29
These exceptions largely do not apply here. While Mr. West may have felt the
need to defend himself against the allegations in the Motion to Vacate, the reality
remains that the Motion to Vacate was not filed against him. He was not a
respondent. This was not “a controversy between the lawyer and the client” and
therefore, it was impermissible for Mr. West to use his former client’s confidential
information while advocating against her.30 That said, it is possible that some of Mr.
West’s use of unprivileged client information in his motion may have been
permissible to the extent that it was used to “respond to allegations . . . concerning
the lawyer’s representation of the client.”31
B. Mr. West’s firm’s public response to a Google Review appears to
breach his ethical duties.
At the hearing, the Debtor explained that she left Mr. West’s law firm, West
Legal Group, PLLC, an unfavorable Google review. She testified that someone
posted a response to her review on behalf of West Legal Group that shared personal
information about her case. The exhibits filed by Mr. West showed part of his firm’s
response to the Google review, which stated “The dismissal of this individual’s
Chapter 13 case resulted from the client’s failure to make the required bankruptcy
plan payments on time, not from any lack of professionalism or effort on the part of
our firm.”32
This small snippet alone is a violation of applicable ethical rules.33 However,
to make matters worse, the Debtor testified that the rest of the response went on to
accuse the Debtor of abusing the bankruptcy system. Mr. West explained that his
29 Id. R. 1.05(d)(2)(ii) and (iii).
30 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(c)(5); see also id. R. 1.05(b)(3) (stating, with
few exceptions, that “a lawyer shall not knowingly use confidential information of a former client
to the disadvantage of the former client after the representation is concluded unless the former
client consents after consultation or the confidential information has become generally known”);
id. R. 1.05(a) (“Confidential information includes both privileged information and unprivileged
client information.”).
31 See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(d)(2)(iii).
32 Brian West Ex. I, ECF No. 24-9 at 1–2.
33 See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05; Tex. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 662, 79
Tex. B.J. 706, 706–07 (Oct. 2016). According to the public docket, see ECF No. 15, the Debtor’s
case was in fact dismissed, for failure to timely file a plan and/or schedules, so information about
any delay in her payments was not public.
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 6 of
10

7
employee responds to online reviews and claimed that he was unaware of the
contents of any response. The full contents of the response were not presented to the
Court by any party at the hearing.
Mr. West’s claim that he was unaware of the Google review response was not
believable. But in any case, under the applicable ethical rules, Mr. West is
responsible for and “subject to discipline for” the conduct of his nonlawyer
assistants. 34 Additionally, “[a] lawyer should give such assistants appropriate
instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment,
particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to the
representation of the client, and should be responsible for their work product.”35
After the hearing, on June 16, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Preserve
and Produce Documents, directing Attorney Brian West to “preserve any copies of
responses to the Debtor’s online reviews that may have been posted by him or West
Legal Group, PLLC” and to “file true and accurate copies of each response” on the
docket.36 Mr. West filed his firm’s responses to the Debtor’s online reviews on the
docket at ECF No. 27. Public access to this document has been restricted.
The Court has reviewed the Google review responses. To avoid further
violating the Debtor’s privacy, the Court will not discuss specifics of the responses
in this order. However, the original response, written by “West Legal Group, PLLC,”
certainly violates the duty of confidentiality. The response discusses the Debtor’s
specific circumstances, discusses information from a prior case filed by the Debtor,
and ultimately accuses the Debtor of “misusing the bankruptcy court system.” The
Court believes that the governing ethics rules provide that it is unacceptable for an
attorney to publicly disclose such information or make such allegations as a response
to a Google review.37
34 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 5.03.
35 Id. R. 5.03 cmt 1 (emphasis added).
36 ECF No. 25.
37 To Mr. West’s credit, he also uploaded his edited review response, which largely adopts the
language suggested by Texas Ethics Opinion 662.
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 7 of
10

8
C. Mr. West’s other cases in this district raise significant concerns about
his standards of practice and requires the Court to examine whether
sanctions including civil penalties are warranted for his failure to meet
his duties as a Debt Relief Agency.
According to the Western District of Texas records, Mr. West was admitted
to practice in this district on March 19, 2025. A search of the online docketing system
reveals that since then, Mr. West has filed nine chapter 13 cases, representing six
individuals or couples. A review of the docket in these cases raises more concerns
to this Court about the overall quality of Mr. West’s chapter 13 practice. Mr. West
has yet to successfully confirm a chapter 13 plan in this district. In almost all of Mr.
West’s cases, at least one document was dismissed for failure to comply with the
Local Rules. Often he failed even to attempt to correct such deficiencies. In any case,
his cases were dismissed for various reasons:
Case Number 	Case Caption 	Disposition 	Filings Dismissed for
Noncompliance with
Local Rules
25-52671-cag 	In re Derek Troy
Wagner
Confirmation denied 	2
25-52720-cag 	In re Derek Troy
Wagner
Case dismissed for failure to
file documents
3
26-50880-mmp In re Derek Troy
Wagner
Case dismissed for failure to
file documents
1
25-70187 	In re Trinidad Jaime
Sarabia Vazquez
Dismissed on debtor’s
motion
2
26-10200 	In re Bryan A. Solis Dismissed for failure to
attend 341(a) meeting
0
26-50058 	In re Warren Maurice
Tripplett and Julia
Alexandria Tripplett
Dismissed for failure to file
e-dec
3
26-50332 	In re Warren Maurice
Tripplett and Julia
Alexandria Tripplett
Dismissed for failure to file
a plan
2
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 8 of
10

9
26-70012 	In re Rahman Abdual
Franklin
Dismissed sua sponte for
failure to file a plan and
failure to attend
confirmation hearing
4
The Court recognizes that it cannot have a complete understanding of what
may have happened in cases that were not before it. The Court is also well aware of
the unique challenges of consumer bankruptcy practice and acknowledges that, for
example, documents cannot be filed if a client does not provide them. However,
hundreds of chapter 13 cases are filed in this Court every year, overwhelmingly by
professional and competent attorneys who do their best to meet deadlines and
comply with local rules. Regardless of the challenges of this practice area, there are
still standards of practice that must be met, and the Court is concerned that Mr. West
has not reached those minimum standards.
A docket search of the online system of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas reflects that, unfortunately, Mr. West’s conduct has raised
similar concerns there.38 As in that district, our table of Mr. West’s cases “reflects a
100% failure rate.”
As Judge Isgur noted in his order in the Southern District, Mr. West is
classified as a “debt relief agency” under governing law. He is therefore required not
to “fail to perform any service that such agency informed an assisted person or
prospective assisted person it would provide in connection with a case or proceeding
under this title.”39 A review of the remarkable percentage of non-compliant filings
and especially the number of filings that he didn’t even attempt then to correct and
refile properly, the Court is concerned that Mr. West may be regularly in violation
of these duties.
Conclusion
This Court will hold a Show Cause Hearing in this matter on July 21, 2026.
Prior to the hearing, Attorney Brian West must file a written response.
38 See Order for Brian Steven West to Appear and Show Cause as to Why He Should Not Be
Sanctioned Under 11 U.S.C. § 526(c)(5)(B), In re Sergio Lucio et. al, Case No. 26-30103, at ECF
No. 34 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 22, 2026).
39 11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(1); Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 236
(2010).
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 9 of
10

10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before July 14, 2026, Attorney
Brian West shall show cause in writing why he should not be subject to sanctions,
including, but not limited to, sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 526(c)(5)(B) and/or
referral to the District Discipline Committee, for the conduct detailed in this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Brian West shall appear at a
Show Cause Hearing in person in Austin Courtroom 2 on July 21, 2026, at 1:45 p.m.
CT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of
this order to be served on the Debtor, Shan’a Wallace. Ms. Wallace may, but is not
required to, appear at the Show Cause Hearing. Ms. Wallace does not have to appear
in person and may appear via Zoom at https://www.zoomgov.com/my/bradley.txwb
or Meeting ID: 160 1114 1085.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of
this order to be served on the United States Trustee.
# # #
26-10649-cgb Doc#30 Filed 06/23/26 Entered 06/23/26 15:26:05 Main Document Pg 10 of
10