Does Culpepper IP want to attack the ISPs next?

Culpepper Served Defendants

I have been speaking to a number of accused defendants who are pretty shocked about Kerry Culpepper’s most recent lawsuit in Colorado. Likely to prove that Culpepper IP’s settlement demand e-mails actually have “teeth,” Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP has not only sued defendants for the copyright infringement of his movie clients’ copyrighted movies, but now he has named and served them as well.

[Please Click to Tweet!]


It is one thing to sue an accused defendant as a “John Doe” defendant. As a John Doe Defendant, the accused defendant is still anonymous. Yes, he is receiving ISP subpoena notification letters from his ISP, but the world does not yet know that he has been accused of software or movie piracy.

The “Anonymous” John Doe

As a John Doe… an ANONYMOUS John Doe, he can still interact with the plaintiff attorney (obviously better and smarter to have an attorney do it). He can have his attorney argue the legal points, he can argue whether he actually did the downloads or not, he can even negotiate a settlement of the claims against him… all while being an ANONYMOUS* John Doe.

Dangers of “Anonymous” Settlements with IP-based Lawsuits

NOTE: It’s probably a good idea to take mention that an accused John Doe Defendant is merely mentioned by his accused IP address <– the IP address his internet service provider (ISP) assigned him for the 24-48 hours that they leased that IP address to him. The danger in settling anonymously is that some copyright attorneys attempt to phrase an “anonymous” settlement as being “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address,” meaning, one accused IP address only. If an accused downloader is a regular movie downloader, he likely has OTHER IP ADDRESSES that were assigned to him.

I wrote about “Anonymous Settlements” and in my “3 Reasons Why an Anonymous Settlement is a Bad Idea” article in September, 2020.

[While that article referenced Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits, the topic of “anonymous settlements” is still very relevant.]

It goes without saying that common sense, settling the claims against you for ONE IP ADDRESS ONLY does not automatically settle ALL claims against you for ALL IP ADDRESSES you ever had. This is something that an attorney should negotiate in an agreement (obviously using the correct terminology).

The danger of settling anonymously is that the plaintiff attorney can take your money, say thank you, and then turn around and ask for another settlement for another movie title that you downloaded. This unending spiral of events could frustrate anybody. Obviously your attorney should be aware of the ONE IP ADDRESS PROBLEM and he should consider it in his settlement release of liability.

Kerry Culpepper’s Colorado Lawsuit… where he named and served his defendants.

So back to Kerry Culpepper and his movie lawsuits. As you can see from this screenshot, Kerry Culpepper sued on behalf of Fallen Productions, Inc. for the unlawful download of their “Angel Has Fallen” movie. Pictured below is is recent Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (federal court).

031721 Culpepper IP Colorado Fallen Productions Lawsuit
Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) filed in the District of Colorado

If you notice, Fallen Productions Inc. was included at the top of the list of another lawsuit he filed last year [2020] in the Hawaii federal court (see, Fallen Productions, Inc. et al. v. Harry B. and DOE Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00004).

culpepper-ip-fallen-productions Culpepper IP and his Fallen Productions Inc. Colorado Lawsuit
Fallen Productions, Inc. et al. v. Harry B. and DOE Defendants (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)

Copyright Trolls

I am not calling all movie companies who sue for the unlawful download, streaming, or viewing of their copyrighted movies “copyright trolls,” but when there is a pattern of lawsuits — all by a specific movie company, or as I have written about before, a conglomerate of movie companies — you must raise the question of whether this company is trying to legitimately enforce their copyright rights, or whether they are trying to make a quick “multi-thousand-dollar settlement” from each defendant… just as a copyright troll would.

Rob Cashman, Author, and owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.

Why Culpepper’s Lawsuits are Different

But again, Kerry Culpepper’s movie lawsuits are different… not because they are asking for multi-thousand-dollar settlements from each accused defendant (they are), but because of what Kerry Culpepper wants.

Kerry Culpepper does not appear to be interested in the money. Yes, a few thousand dollars sounds like a lot of money for his clients (and it is).

But it is starting to appear to me that Culpepper IP is more interested in going after the ISPs and the VPN providers. Why? Because it is the SAFE HARBOR IMMUNITY given to ISPs that I believe he is trying to break.

[Please Click to Tweet!]

ISP DMCA Safe Harbor Rules

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “safe harbor” rules, ISPs have not been liable for infringing traffic (e.g., movie downloads) that happen on their network.

Obviously each ISP has in its terms of service (TOS) that using their network for copyright infringement is reason for the ISP to terminate that account holder’s ISP internet account. But to my awareness, they rarely [if ever] cancel their customer’s account for violations of the terms of service when that account holder downloads or streams a movie from an unauthorized website.

Why I believe Culpepper IP want to get around the DMCA Safe Harbor Rules

I understand that Kerry Culpepper is looking to circumvent the safe harbor rules and he wants to force the ISPs to cooperate with his requests.

He likely wants to do this without him needing to go to the federal court and file a “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuit every time he learns that “some guy did something.”

Really, I understand that he just wants to contact the ISP and have them disclose the real identity of the account holder… without lawsuits… without subpoenas… without Hawaii Rule 521(h) lawsuits… and without going to court at all.

Why do I think this? Because [among other reasons I am still confirming], in his questionnaire to accused internet users, he asked, “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”

^^^ Why would he ask this? ^^^

[In Culpepper IP’s e-mails], his $950 settlement demands are not merely, “pay me and I’ll decide not to sue you in federal court for copyright infringement.” No. Rather, with his settlements, he is asking accused internet users to provide a signed declaration detailing:

1) “which file sharing client you used to reproduce the motion picture;”

2) “which website or business promoted the file sharing client to you;” and

3) “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”

Reference: “The Truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand EMAILS to accused internet users,” written on 9/16/2020.

What does Culpepper demonstrate from the Fallen Productions Inc. Colorado Lawsuit?

In this lawsuit in Colorado, you see that after some initial pushback from the judge on PERSONAL JURISDICTION issues, Kerry Culpepper first dismissed a few defendants (presumably those who settled), and then he turned around and NAMED AND SERVED a handful of defendants.

What can we take from this? What can a judge take from this? That Kerry Culpepper is not interested in the John Doe. He is not interested in their money. He is not even interested in their alleged infringement of his movie clients’ movies.

My thought: He wants their DATA to go after BIGGER FISH.

Again, why would he ask the three questions in his e-mail settlement demand e-mails? Because Kerry Culpepper wants to look past the defendants and go after his real target — the ISPs who allow their subscribers to download films and movies on their internet networks in violation of the copyright holder’s copyright rights.

[Please Click to Tweet!]

And, Culpepper still wants “LAWFARE.”


Understanding that Kerry Culpepper is engaging in “lawfare” (legal war) against piracy-based websites, we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC suggest that Culpepper is using these $950 settlement demand e-mails to build a portfolio of evidence against the piracy-based websites.[“Lawfare” is defined as using legal systems and institutions to achieve a goal. It can be the misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or de-legitimizing them.]

Earlier this month, I wrote an article entitled, “Why Culpepper IP Is Engaging In A Takeover Of The Piracy Trade Names,” where I suggested that Kerry Culpepper is filing piracy-based trademarks as his own for the purpose of literally taking the domain names (and consequently, their traffic from the millions of internet users who visit their pages every day) and using it for his own purposes.

Reference: The Truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand EMAILS to internet users, written on 9/16/2020 (link).

Remember also Culpepper IP’s trademark “lawfare” on Piracy Trade Names

Also, let’s not forget about why I believe that “Culpepper IP Is Engaging in a Takeover of the Piracy Trade Names.”

Again, I am just reporting here. Yes, I am aware of the hundreds, maybe thousands of accused individuals who received e-mails directly from Culpepper IP (now from someone

I still think that Culpepper has a bigger plan, and that plan is NOT the settlement or the John Doe Defendant.

[Please Click to Tweet!]

What should I do if I am NAMED AND SERVED as a defendant?

To the accused downloaders of Kerry’s Colorado case — what should you do? Well, he NAMED AND SERVED you. This means that you are no longer a “John Doe Defendant,” but you are now a “Named and Served” Defendant.

I have written a “walkthrough” article on what to do once you are named and served. I called it, “NAMED AND SERVED AS A DEFENDANT.

And for reference, this is article very different from the other “walkthrough” article I have written on what to do when you are accused of being a John Doe Defendant.

I didn’t call that one “SUED AS A JOHN DOE” (as I probably should have):

The point is — once named and served [as the defendants from the Colorado court were] — you are accused of copyright infringement for downloading one or more movies without a license.

Whether you like it or not, you are now “in litigation,” which means that you have procedural deadlines and responsibilities according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P) on what you must do next before you miss the deadline to file an answer with the court and Culpepper asks the court for a judgement against you.

Obviously, you can contact me at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC if you have any questions.

If for some reason I won’t take you as a client, I will still happily spend time with you on the phone to answer your questions.

I will happily also refer you to an attorney in your state who is competent to represent you in this case. I have never taken a referral fee, but I still believe that even if I can’t help you — at the very least, I do my best to put you in the hands of an attorney who can help you.

And obviously I’ll lead you far away from the “settlement factory” attorneys I have written about more times than I can count.

-Robert Z. Cashman, author and owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC

Public Policy Letter to Judges on Copyright Issues

Lastly, it has been quite a while since I’ve revisited the “Public Policy Letter to Judges” article that I wrote in 2012 (and edited in 2023 to avoid online censorship), but I wanted to take a moment and mention that this letter has been sent to judges across the US… not only by me, but by many activist individuals who have an interest in keeping copyright trolls out of the federal courts.

While the “copyright troll” lawsuits have changed somewhat since we wrote that in 2012, the copyright laws themselves and the “uneven playing field” that I describe in this letter (this link is a .pdf attachment) is still very real, and very valid.

Now, as I did almost TEN YEARS AGO, I invite you to make this letter your own and to inform judges about the problems with copyright attorneys who sue John Doe defendants for the purpose of extracting a quick settlement. You do not need to be a defendant to send this letter.

And as always, e-mail me or contact me if I can be of assistance to you.

[To follow-up on this article and see what else I have written on Kerry Culpepper, the easiest way is to simple do a search on my TorrentLawyer website for Culpepper IP and see what articles show up.]

[One last time… Please Click to Tweet!]

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about what I have written here (or if you have received one of these settlement demand e-mails), you can e-mail us at [email protected], you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your case, or you can SMS/WhatsApp us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it for my eyes only, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

    NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

    Why Being Served in a Copyright Case Can Lead To Settlement

    ‘John Doe’ Defendants are being forced deeper into copyright infringement lawsuits. Being served can backfire on a troll forcing a cheap settlement.

    DISCLAIMER: In this article I speak a lot about plaintiff attorneys cheating their own copyright holder clients, billing them “by the hour” (rather than the conventional method of accepting the copyright holder clients “on contingency”), and in some cases, wasting time to generate additional billing to their own clients.  It is my observation and opinion that this is happening, but short of a lawsuit like we saw with the Dallas Buyers Club copyright holders against their Voltage Pictures licensee, it is difficult to prove that such things are taking place.  However, “honor or dishonor among thieves” is not the topic or the point of the article — the point of the article is that plaintiffs are dragging defendants further into the federal lawsuits by naming and serving them, and it is my opinion that it is still possible to obtain a settlement, even after a client has admitted guilt in an answer to a deposition question.

    It is a sad day when trolls force those they’ve accused to become legal experts and to stick their toes into the federal courts to defend themselves. In the attached article, DTD is correct that lawyers (myself included) can get expensive, and defending a case (e.g., answering a complaint, showing up and defending a deposition, answering the various requests for information that are required in a federal lawsuit, etc.) is often more expensive than simply paying a copyright troll plaintiff a few bucks to make them go away.

    Unfortunately (at least in my Texas Southern District federal court), the copyright-troll attorneys appear to be billing their copyright-holder clients BY THE HOUR (which differs from the old model of a plaintiff attorney agreeing to take a case on contingency and only sharing in the settlement profits believing [the lie] that “they’ll make millions going after John Doe Defendants”), so these ‘hardened’ plaintiff attorneys seem to be running-up the bill by dragging the defendants through the mud — naming them, serving them, filing documents, and wasting everyone’s time.

    In short, while I agree that IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES doing what DTD suggested (filing an answer with the court and fighting your case) would normally not be something one would ever dare do [at least without a lawyer holding his/her hand, or sitting in and defending a deposition], in today’s evolution of modern copyright infringement cases, filing an answer and at least being willing to endure the legal process until a settlement is offered (and a settlement is usually offered eventually) has become a necessity.


    Let’s take a quick example.  In the typical scenario, the goal in representing a client who wants to settle is to contact the plaintiff attorney on the client’s behalf and negotiate a settlement.  For a plaintiff attorney who is billing his copyright troll client by the hour (as is what appears to be happening in the Texas-based copyright infringement cases), agreeing to a settlement is too easy of an outcome because the plaintiff attorney does not make the kind of money he could make “dragging the defendant through the mud while charging his client hourly to do so.”  (Remember, as we saw with the Voltage / Dallas Buyers Club cases, a crooked attorney steals not only from his victim [the accused defendant], but also from his client (as we saw in the Voltage / Dallas Buyers Club cases where Voltage was sued for failing to pay Dallas Buyers Club monies earned and owed to it through its copyright enforcement activities)).

    More likely than not, the plaintiff attorney’s client (the actual copyright holder seeking to “monetize” or “enforce” the rights given to him via his copyright) is not aware that the attorney is over-billing (e.g., engaging in such “mud-dragging”, “revenue-producing” activities often cannot be proven, and thus it continues until the copyright holder gets tired of paying his attorney’s bill).  Thus, free of scrutiny from his client, the plaintiff attorney needlessly exacerbates the situation by demanding from the defendant something unreasonable (e.g., that unless the defendant is willing to agree to sign an explicit admission of guilt prior to being made aware of the kind or amount of settlement he will be offered, there will be no settlement).  [FYI, this is something no sane person would agree to.]  As a result, the defendant refuses to admit guilt, he gets named and served, and he is forced to spend thousands of dollars more to defend himself.  Why?  Because his plaintiff attorney figured out a way to milk not only him (the defendant), but his copyright-holder client as well.

    There are a number of steps that happen after being named and served, but the point is that eventually, the plaintiff attorney is going to schedule a deposition (where the defendant will need to answer questions “under oath,”) and the defendant is going to tell the truth about what happened.  If the download indeed happened, this will come out in the deposition.

    However, this “nightmare” fear that the defendant will “admit guilt” will only cause one result — the plaintiff will have proof that at trial, based on the information elicited from the defendant in the deposition, that defendant could be held liable for the $150,000 in statutory damages.  But then… how many of these defendants have $150K sitting around in their mattresses or in their bank accounts?  And if they do, don’t you think that instead of paying the judgment, they would rather hire a bankruptcy lawyer and file for a bankruptcy to discharge the copyright infringement judgment in bankruptcy?

    In short, the worst-case-scenario in a deposition is that the defendant admits guilt, which is often what will likely happen if the defendant is the downloader of the copyrighted film.  But then after all this excitement, the plaintiff attorney and the copyright holder still want to get paid (and they know they are likely not going to collect anything by obtaining a $150K judgment against the defendant).  This is why the plaintiff attorney will likely initiate settlement talks with the defendant, taking his financial circumstances into consideration.

    This is not to say that settling a case right away (and before being named and served) is no longer an option — there are multiple copyright holders filing in the Texas and New York courts, including Criminal Productions Inc., September Productions Inc., CELL Film Holdings LLC, the infamous Malibu Media LLC, Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, and the related non-traditional copyright holders which include DISH Network L.L.C. (not so much anymore) and Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. (a software company), each of whom have their priorities and specific instructions on how they would like their plaintiff attorneys to handle the lawsuits on their behalf.

    But, what I do want you to glean from this commentary (really, it’s an article, but I did re-blog DTD’s article and I need to stick to that topic), is that plaintiff attorneys ARE naming and serving defendants, and it should be expected that this could happen — and if a defendant is named and served, they could still negotiate a settlement.  But be aware that in order to get to that point, the plaintiff attorney (who might be motivated by maximizing his billing to his own client [think, stealing from you AND stealing from his own client]) might drag you through a deposition and a number of steps before he accepts a settlement from you.


    I agree that lawyers are expensive simply because we charge for the time it takes to complete each step of the legal process. However, many attorneys (myself included) already know how much time each step will take, so “flat fee” billing is an option (understanding that billing would happen based on timelines of where you are in the lawsuit).

    Thus, it might make sense to hire an attorney who charges you a flat fee for a certain “block” or piece of the lawsuit (e.g.,






    …AND SO ON, BLOCK 6: …TRIAL (my opinion, unlikely, unless the copyright holder figured out a way to prevent the deep-pocket defendant from filing for bankruptcy).

    I have laid these out as a template, as each case and each copyright holder often needs to be handled differently.  Typically, clients were able to negotiate a settlement and be released from liability with just BLOCK 1.  However, as we discussed above, we are seeing more-and-more that plaintiff attorneys are taking defendants deeper into the lawsuits (“deeper down the rabbit hole, so to speak”), specifically past the “naming and serving” stage, past the answer stage, and into the discovery stages before considering or accepting settlements.  I am not one to advocate doing this on your own, and if you could afford an attorney (me, or anyone else), that is the safest way to go.  But if hiring me or another attorney is not an option, fighting this on your own (called, “pro se”) is the best alternative, and DTD’s article gives you a good first and necessary step in getting the ball rolling.

    As I said before, good article, DTD!

    Caveat – I’m not an attorney and I’m not practicing law. This is simply my thoughts and views based on what I see concerning [ ] Copyright Infringement Trolls. If you decide you need legal advice, please hire a knowledgeable attorney. IF you truly cannot afford an attorney, here at least is one possible option. […]

    via Answering A [ ] Copyright Troll Summons/Complaint — DieTrollDie

    CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

      NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

      shalta book now cta

      NAMED AND SERVED | When a Defendant Stops Being a John Doe

      TorrentLawyer University | Named and Served Defendant

      When is a bittorrent user “named and served”?


      • At what point is an accused torrent user ‘named and served’ in a lawsuit? Is it once the ISP turns over his information to the attorneys?
      • What do I do if I am ‘named and served’ in such a lawsuit?
      • Can your firm still represent me if I am ‘named and served’ in a lawsuit?
      • What if I am named and served in a jurisdiction in which you are not licensed?

      All of the proceedings that have been taking place with these copyright infringement cases have been in the pretrial stages while the defendant is still a John Doe represented merely by his accused IP address. Even after the internet service provider hands over the defendant’s identifying information, he or she remains a John Doe Defendant until the plaintiff attorney decides whether to name and serve the defendant or dismiss him or her.

      2017 UPDATE: I am including this article as part of the TorrentLawyer University set of fundamental topics which are relevant to bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits.

      Am I ‘Named and Served’ when the ISP complies with the subpoena asking for my information?

      No.  The ISP was under a duty signed by a federal judge to hand over your information.  If your attorney did not file a motion to quash the subpoena, then your ISP likely complied with the judge’s order.  This means that they forwarded over your account information, along with the account information of the other “John Doe” Defendants in your case.  It is easiest to think about this as if the ISP sent over a spreadsheet with a bunch of lines on it — your account information was included in one of those lines.

      You are not named and served when your ISP complies with the subpoena.  You remain a “John Doe” defendant — anonymous to the world, but only known to you, the ISP, and now, your plaintiff attorney (and his copyright troll client).

      Being ‘Named and Served’ Happens When the Complaint is Amended

      Amending the Complaint (“Named”)

      A plaintiff attorney ‘names’ a bittorrent defendant when he amends the copyright infringement complaint, replacing the John Doe placeholder with the real defendant’s name.  In a bittorrent-based copyright infringement case, the plaintiff attorney names a defendant when he changes the name of the accused defendants from “John Does 1-200” (or however many “John Doe” putative defendants there are) to “John Does 1-199, and Jim Smith” (Jim Smith being the named defendant).

      Service of Process (“Served”)

      Upon naming a defendant, the plaintiff attorney then must ‘serve’ a defendant with a copy of the complaint.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) gives him a few ways to do this.  The easiest (and costliest method) is to hire a process server to stop at the defendant’s house and serve him with a copy of the complaint.  Other methods include using the U.S. mail (asking the defendant to waive service of process in return for receiving a longer time period to file an answer with the court), etc.  The complaint must conform to both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules (more on this in a future post).

      Status of the former “John Doe” Defendant upon being Named and Served

      If the plaintiff attorney names and serves the defendant, the named defendant ceases to be a John Doe and must immediately file any motions (e.g., motions to quash if still relevant, motions to dismiss, etc.) with the court. The defendant is advised if he has not already done so to hire local counsel (or if he is already represented by an attorney, to have his attorney hire local counsel to file motions on his behalf) to defend the case.

      In short, upon being named and served, the defendant’s attorney (or local counsel) must file an answer to the complaint with the court, send a copy to the plaintiff, and must start evidentiary proceedings (e.g., discovery) if he is to properly defend his client.

      Can your firm still represent me if I am ‘named and served’ in a lawsuit?

      Absolutely.  A bittorrent lawsuit is simply a copyright infringement lawsuit.  It is filed in one of the many federal courts spread across the country, and any attorney who knows how to navigate the federal courts can represent you in your case.  Our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice focuses in federal court practice, so we can represent you in any federal court, even if we are not licensed to practice in that state.

      What if I am named and served in a jurisdiction in which you are not licensed?

      Not a problem.  Copyright law is exclusively federal law.  Thus, copyright infringement lawsuits belong exclusively in the federal courts.  Now obviously some courts will require that we hire local counsel in that state, but we already know which courts require this and are prepared to defend you in your case.

      Where the cases are (as of writing this article).

      Our firm has been gearing up for full-fledged copyright infringement lawsuits since September of 2010, but as of writing this article (Feb., 2011), so far the cases have not moved past the John Doe stages of the lawsuits. It just seems to me as if the plaintiffs are nervous that if they start suing, then we will start defending the cases diligently and we will start creating bad case law for them (which is exactly what they have been trying to avoid). If they move the case down this road of naming and serving defendants and we start winning on the merits of the case rather than having them dismissed based on procedural defects (as has been the case in most of the dismissals to date), we will shut down their operations and will make it almost impossible for them to continue their cash machine of suing John Doe Defendants without naming and serving the underlying defendants and scaring them into settling, only to dismiss and repeat with a whole new set of defendants.

      Warm regards,
      Rob Cashman, Owner
      Cashman Law Firm, PLLC


      FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

      CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

        NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

        Skip to content