We have twenty two (22) years of experience in the following areas of law:

• Real Estate
• Real Estate Litigation
• Document Preparation (deeds, notes, deeds of trust, wrap notes)
• Setting up Corporations and Partnerships
• Partnership Disputes
• Construction Litigation
• Licensing Agreements
• Technology Law
• Internet Law
• Copyrights
• Trademarks
• Domain Name Disputes
• Privacy
• Defamation
• Deceptive Trade Practices
• Non-Compete Clauses

We have represented clients in Switzerland, Belgium, France, South Africa, British Columbia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Texas, Nevada, California, Philippines and China.

We handle investor disputes where fraud, failure to maximize the value of shares, breach of fiduciary duty or shareholder oppression are the primary issues.

We handle all manner of technology law issues, including copyrights, trademarks, cybersquatting, Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, trade secrets, domain name disputes, lost electronic data and more.

We handle all manner of construction, engineering and architectural design disputes, including, building and housing defects, defective automobiles, toxic poisoning, insurance disputes, Deceptive Trade Practices, insurance disputes, and all kinds of defective products.  

We also handle all manner of employment disputes, including sexual harassment, breach of executive employment contracts, wrongful discharge, discrimination (age, sex and race), retaliation, whistleblower claims, non-compete clauses, libel and slander, stealing clients or client lists and more.

We also handle all manner of civil appeals.  We have handled state court and federal court appeals for many years.  We are available to appeal cases lost by other lawyers, or take over as trial counsel in a difficult situation.   

We also handle licensing agreements for copyrights, patents, trademarks and more. 

We also handle the incorporation of businesses.

We also act as General Counsel to many small businesses. Many of our clients need an “on call” attorney who can answer legal questions and give consultation any time of day or night they need it.  However, many small to medium size businesses cannot afford to hire a full-time attorney in-house.  We offer our services as your General Counsel . . . someone you can go to for anything no matter how small or how large.

Streber v. Hunter, et al., 211 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2000)

In this case, we represented one of two sisters in a lawsuit against their former attorneys from Louisiana, Edwin Hunter, Glynn Blazier and Timothy O’Dowd, for legal malpractice. The two sisters had received a gift from their father in the amount of $1.7 million each. They went to Hunter for tax advice. Hunter told them they did not owe any tax. When the IRS disagreed, the sisters were forced to go through a grueling trial in U.S. Tax Court. They were represented by O’Dowd and Blazier, who worked for Hunter. Hunter charged them approximately $300,000 in the process. The sisters lost the tax trial and ended up owing the IRS $1.6 million each. The sisters sued for legal malpractice in federal court in Austin, Texas and won. The jury awarded the sisters $18 million. This was the largest verdict ever awarded in federal district court in Austin, Texas. However, the trial court judge was forced to reduce the verdict to approximately $3.2 million under the statutory caps.

The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in a unanimous opinion the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the issue of liability, but reduced the award to approximately $1.2 million.

This case is significant for several reasons. First, after eight years of representing Fortune 500 companies on the defense side, this was the first case Dan Castro tried on the plaintiff’s side. Second, it established precedent on several significant issues, including the right of a plaintiff to recover the difference between interest owed to the IRS and the interest the plaintiff was able to earn in the market while she held the money.

Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W2d 439 (Tex. 1998)

In this case, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a rider to a new law, which prohibited the use of State funds to distribute prescription drugs to minors without their parents’ consent. The impact of this law was that Planned Parenthood would no longer receive state funds to perform abortions on minors without their parents’ consent.

We represented several families and minors who intervened for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute. The trial judge threw out the interveners without just cause, and found the rider to the statute unconstitutional. However, on appeal, we filed an Amicus Brief at the Texas Supreme Court.

Our Amicus Brief presented arguments that were not addressed in any of the parties’ briefs. During oral argument, the Supreme Court focused primarily on the issues that we raised in our brief and which had not been briefed by any of the parties. Ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order based on arguments we raised in our Amicus Brief. Even though my clients were thrown out of the lawsuit, the arguments we raised carried the day. We handled this case pro bono and won. This was a great victory for those who believe that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to have a say in the medical treatment their children receive.

Dell Computer Corp. v. Swindells, No. A-00-CA-175-SS, U.S. District Court, Austin, Texas (2000).

In this case, Dell Computer Corp. sued a British Columbia corporation under the new Anti-Cybersquatting Act. The Anti-Cybersquatting Act prevents people from registering the trademarked names of famous corporations and people as internet “domain names” and then demanding large sums of money for the sale of the domain name. Our client was named Don Swindells, an individual from British Columbia who owned a company with a domain name called dell-leasing.com.

The Anti-Cybersquatting Act provides an exception for individuals who register domain names based on their own names or a derivative of their own name. Don Swindells came within this exception because his domain name “dell-leasing.com” was a derivative of his own name. Aside from this fact, we filed a Motion To Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dell Computer Corp. argued that the court had personal jurisdiction over the British Columbia corporation because it had sufficient contacts with Texas via his web-site, which was accessible to users in Texas. This was and still is a very hot area of the law. Based on the most recent case law, we argued that my client’s “passive web-site” was insufficient to authorize personal jurisdiction over the British Columbia corporation. The Court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, adding to growing number of cases that are creating a body of law in this area. Dan Castro will be speaking on this issue at a CLE seminar at the State Bar Convention in Austin this June, 2001.

GTE Southwest v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 10 S.W. 3d 7 (Tex. App.—Austin, 1999)

This case involved the question of whether the State has constitutional authority to force a company to sell its private property to its competitors for pennies on the dollar. The case arose after the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in Texas. When deregulation occurred, “Shared Tenant Service Providers” arose and began confiscating telephone lines from the incumbent telephone companies in order to provide telephone service to apartment complexes. The STS Providers began demanding that the established telephone companies, such as GTE, give them their existing telephone lines located within apartment complexes for free, or for pennies on the dollar. The Public Utilities Commission ordered GTE to sell its telephone lines throughout Texas to the STS Providers for millions less than its cost. As corporate counsel to GTE, I represented GTE in the appeal of the PUC’s order, arguing that the PUC’s forced sale was an unconstitutional “taking.” After I left GTE, I handed the ball off to another law firm who advanced my same arguments to finish the appeal. Ultimately the Austin Court of Appeals reversed the PUC’s order on the ground that it was an unconstitutional taking. This was a great victory for the fundamental right of private companies to do with their property what they will.

David G. v. AISD, et al. (5th Cir. 1992)(unpublished)

In this case the parents of a disabled high school student sued the Austin Independent School District and two of its Special Education teachers, individually, for injuries sustained by their son as a result of two “slip and fall” accidents on school premises. The lawsuit claimed intentional discrimination against the disabled and a violation of the student’s civil rights. We tried this case before the Honorable Judge Sparks in Federal Court in Austin. The Court found in favor of the school district and the two teachers. The parents of the student appealed and we won at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.