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 SANCTIONING ATTORNEY BRIAN WEST
On June 23, 2026, this Court issued an Order for Attorney Brian West to Show
Cause (the “Show Cause Order”) [ECF No. 30], directing Attorney Brian West to
show cause 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 Disciplinary
Committee. Mr. West filed a timely response on July 14, 2026.1 The Court held a
show cause hearing on July 21, 2026.
As detailed in the Show Cause Order, the Court’s concerns in this case arose
out of 1) Mr. West’s response to his former client’s pro se motion to vacate an order
1 ECF No. 34.
The relief described hereinbelow is SO ORDERED.
Signed August 06, 2026.
__________________________________
CHRISTOPHER G. BRADLEY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
________________________________________________________________
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 1 of 7

2
for summary dismissal, specifically that the response advocated against his former
client’s interests and divulged privileged communications, and 2) a Google Maps
review response posted by Mr. West’s firm that included client information. The
Court also expressed concerns with the overall quality of Mr. West’s chapter 13
practice in this district. The Court will discuss each concern in turn.
Legal Background
Attorneys practicing in this district are bound by the Texas Disciplinary Rules
of Professional Conduct.2 Under those rules, an attorney who no longer represents a
client still has obligations to protect the former client’s information confidential.3
Specifically, an attorney “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.”4
These obligations have limited exceptions. Relevant here, an attorney may
disclose confidential information “to the extent reasonably necessary to enforce a
claim or establish a defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the
lawyer and the client” and “to establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or
disciplinary complaint against the lawyer or the lawyer’s associates based upon
conduct involving the client or the representation of the client.”5 An attorney may
reveal unprivileged client information “when the lawyer has reason to believe it is
necessary to do so” to “defend the lawyer . . .against a claim of wrongful conduct”
or “respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation
of the client.”6
2 W.D. Tex. Att’y R. AT-7(a).
3 See generally Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.,
tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (Tex. State Bar R. art. X, § 9)); id. R. 1.09; id. R. 1.16.
4 Id. R. 1.05(b)(3). In Texas, the term “confidential information” encompasses both privileged
information and unprivileged information. Id. R. 1.05(a). Privileged information is information
protected by an attorney-client privilege, while unprivileged information is defined as “all
information relating 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.” Id.
5 Id. R. 1.05(c)(5) and (6).
6 Id. R. 1.05(d)(2)(ii) and (iii).
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 2 of 7

3
Analysis
A. Mr. West does not appear to sufficiently understand the applicable
ethical standards with regard to client confidentiality.
Mr. West’s client, the debtor, filed a pro se motion to vacate summary
dismissal order alleging, among other things, that Mr. West failed to communicate
with her and was unlicensed. However, the Court did not issue the Show Cause
Order because of the debtor’s motion. The Court issued the Show Cause Order
because of Mr. West’s conduct in responding to the debtor’s motion to vacate and
because of the Google review response, discussed in a later section, of which the
Court became aware when Mr. West filed it as an exhibit on the docket of this case.
The Court explained its concerns about Mr. West’s conduct in the Show Cause
Order and at the show cause hearing. Yet both Mr. West’s filed response to the Show
Cause Order and his arguments at the hearing generally fixated on his former client’s
alleged non-communication and his firm’s attempts to communicate with the client
during the representation.
Again, most of the issues in the Show Cause Order arose out of the conduct
of Mr. West and his firm after he no longer represented the debtor.7 The Court is
unsettled 	by 	counsel’s 	apparent 	continued 	misunderstanding 	of 	his 	ethical
responsibilities and of the conduct that breached the duty to the debtor.
Further, Mr. West does not appear to understand the difference between
privileged and unprivileged information under the Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Conduct and when the disclosure of each is acceptable. His disclosure of client
communications and privileged client information in response to the motion to
vacate was not permissible, as there was no “controversy between the lawyer and
the client” at that time and it was not a “disciplinary complaint against the lawyer.”8
His disclosure of unprivileged client information was, however, likely permissible.9
7 The Show Cause Order did discuss Mr. West’s failure to file a compliant motion to extend time
after the one filed in this case was dismissed for noncompliance with the local rules. This did
happen during Mr. West’s representation of the debtor but was not addressed by Mr. West in his
response or at the show cause hearing.
8 Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(c).
9 Id. 1.05(d)(iii).
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 3 of 7

4
B. Mr. West’s handling of the Google Review response was ultimately
satisfactory.
As detailed in the Show Cause Order,10 West Legal Group, PLLC posted a
response to a negative Google review by the debtor that impermissibly revealed
information about the debtor’s case. In his response and at the show cause hearing,
Mr. West took responsibility for this posting, which he explained was published by
one of his employees without his knowledge. The review response was later edited
to comply with applicable ethics rules.
Mr. West explained that his firm has taken remedial actions to ensure that
future review responses are compliant with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct, including training his staff and implementing a policy that Mr.
West must review and approve all online responses. The Court appreciates Mr.
West’s candid acceptance of his responsibility for this matter and is encouraged by
his proposed policy changes. The Court will not impose sanctions because of the
Google review response.
C. The Court’s remains concerned with Mr. West’s response to the Show
Cause Order.
Mr. West’s response claims that he was not aware of his firm’s Google review
response before June 17, 2026.11 The initial testimony about this Google review
response was at the hearing on June 16, 2026, and the Court issued an order12 on
June 16, 2026, ordering Mr. West to preserve and produce the Google review
response by the next day.
Most concerning to the Court is this: as explained in the Show Cause Order,
part of the Google review response that on its own violates applicable ethics rules
was filed as an exhibit by Mr. West on the docket in this case on June 11, 2026.13
The Court previously expressed its skepticism that Mr. West had reviewed his
response to the debtor’s motion to vacate prior to the hearing on June 16, 2026. Now,
it seems obvious that if Mr. West had in fact reviewed (or sufficiently reviewed)
these filings, as he claims, he would certainly have been aware of the Google review
response. Thus, the Court is left with no other conclusion than that he either failed
10 ECF No. 30 at 6–7; see also ECF No. 27 (copies of the Google Review responses, restricted
from public access).
11 ECF No. 34 at 4–5.
12 ECF No. 25.
13 Brian West Ex. I, ECF No. 24-9, at 1, 2; see also “[Brian West]’s Response in Opposition to
Debtor’s Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal,” ECF No. 23, at 6.
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 4 of 7

5
to review the documents and lied to the Court about it; or that his “review” was
cursory at best.
At the show cause hearing, with regard to the filing opposing his client,
Mr. West stated that while he reviewed the document itself, “the title probably got
past me.”14 However, this is completely implausible. While the title, “Respondent’s
Response in Opposition to Debtor’s Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal,” is both
incorrect (Brian West was not a respondent) and improper (advocating against his
former client), the title does not substantively differ from the contents of the response.
The response begins by arguing against the debtor’s requested relief: “The Debtor’s
request that the Court vacate the dismissal of this Chapter 13 case should be denied
because the Debtor has not established any basis for relief under the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure and applicable law.”15 The subheadings of the argument
section read, “Debtor has not established a legal basis to vacate the dismissal,”
“Counsel-related complaints to not, by themselves, justify reinstating the case,”
“Debtor’s request for additional time does not justify relief on this record,” and
“Debtor is not entitled to punitive or other affirmative relief against Respondents.”16
The response concludes with Mr. West requesting that “the Court deny Debtor’s
Motion to Vacate Dismissal in its entirety” and includes as an exhibit a proposed
order denying debtor’s motion to vacate order of dismissal.17
It is apparent, as conceded, that Mr. West failed to review the title of this
document. But contrary to his representations to this Court, this Court believes it is
equally apparent that he failed to review its contents, despite his obligation to do so.
And it seems likely to be the case that he was dishonest with the Court about his
involvement (or lack thereof) in the drafting and filing of this document and its
exhibits.
D. The Court’s concerns with Mr. West’s general practice.
At the show cause hearing, Mr. West and counsel for the United States Trustee
both discussed the show cause order issued by Judge Isgur in the Southern District
of Texas. Counsel for the United States Trustee explained to the Court that
Judge Isgur ordered Mr. West to meet with a chapter 13 trustee in that district to
discuss best practices in chapter 13 cases. Judge Isgur is reportedly satisfied with
Mr. West’s progress in that district. Because Mr. West has filed no new cases in the
14 Audio Recording of 7/21/2026 Hr’g.
15 ECF No. 23 at 1.
16 Id. at 6, 7, 8.
17 Id. at 9, ECF No. 23-1 at 1.
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 5 of 7

6
Western District of Texas, the Court is at this time unable to evaluate any
improvement.
E. Sanctions
The Court recognizes that Mr. West’s general quality of representation may
increase in the Southern District of Texas after mentorship and education. However,
Mr. West’s failure to understand and abide by his basic ethical duties in this case
demonstrates to the Court that further education is needed. Therefore, the Court will
order Mr. West to complete ten hours of continuing legal education. The Court also
encourages Mr. West to continue seeking out mentorship and development of his
chapter 13 practice skills prior to taking on any new cases in this district. The Court
recognizes the need for consumer bankruptcy practitioners, but the need for, and the
difficulty of, this work does not justify pervasive failures to abide by ethical duties
or making misrepresentations to a court.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Local Rule 2016-1(a), an attorney representing
a debtor is required to “file with the Court a statement of compensation paid or
agreed to be paid.”18 Mr. West did not file such statement in this case. However, the
record reflects that the debtor in this case paid $2,000 for services, $1,500 of which
was refunded to the debtor after she disputed the charge with her bank.19 The Court
will order Mr. West to disgorge the remaining $500 to the debtor.20 He should file
this statement in all future cases or prepare to have his fees disgorged and further
sanctions imposed.
The Court will also refer Attorney Brian West to the Western District of Texas
Disciplinary Committee to determine what, if any, conditions should be imposed on
his ability to practice in this district. The Court will also request that the Disciplinary
Committee consider whether Mr. West’s conduct warrants reporting to either the
Alabama State Bar or the State Bar of Texas.
The Court will decline at this time to issue sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 526(c),
although it is a close call. Ultimately, the record does not sufficiently reflect that
18 See also Fed. R. Bank. P. 2016(a).
19 Brian West Ex. A, ECF No. 24-1, at 1 (listing a pre-filing retainer of $2,000), Brian West Ex. A,
ECF 35-2.
20 The Court notes that Mr. West’s response to the Show Cause Order lists several cases that
Mr. West concedes were dismissed due to his office’s clerical errors. The Court will not at this
time order disgorgement of fees in any of these cases, but Mr. West should consider voluntarily
providing such disgorgement as a showing of his good faith commitment to retaining fees only
when he competently represents his clients.
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 6 of 7

7
Mr. West intentionally failed to file documents on behalf of any client or that any
client’s case was converted or dismissed specifically because of Mr. West’s failure
to file documents. However, remedies under this section remain very much a
possibility going forward. Mr. West should remain cognizant of his responsibility to
file documents that are compliant with the local rules of any court in which he
chooses to practice and his responsibility to monitor each case for filings that are
dismissed for noncompliance.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before November 2, 2026,
Attorney Brian West shall complete 10 hours of accredited continuing legal
education in addition to any minimum annual requirements he may be subject to by
the Alabama State Bar. Each education credit shall be in the areas of (both) legal
ethics/professional responsibility and bankruptcy. Mr. West shall file with the Court
a certification of compliance with this Order, listing the courses and number of CLE
credit hours completed for each, by no later than December 31, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Brian West shall disgorge fees
in the amount of $500 to the debtor, Shan’a Wallace, on or before August 14, 2026.
Mr. West is ordered to file a notice of fees disgorged on the docket in this case on or
before August 17, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Brian West shall not fail to file
the required disclosure of compensation in every future bankruptcy case in this
district.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of
this order to be served on the United States Trustee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of
this order to be served on David M. Gonzalez, Chair of the Western District of Texas
Disciplinary Committee, at 1100 Guadalupe Street, Ste. B, Austin, Texas 78701.
# # #
26-10649-cgb Doc#36 Filed 08/06/26 Entered 08/06/26 10:25:55 Main Document Pg 7 of 7