by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

The phrase “experience counts” is well known and perhaps even shopworn. “Experience” in that context refers to the sum total of the events and history of someone’s life. Often, it is contrasted with “book learning” to differentiate what we learn from actual school as opposed to the “school of hard knocks.”

Madeleine Connor, a Texas lawyer since 2001, has both “book learning” and litigation experience. According to at least two courts, way too much of the latter.

She sued a couple of directors of something called the “Lost Creek Municipal Utility District” in the United States District Court in Austin. In June 2018, the court granted a motion for sanctions against her and set a hearing to consider a “pre-filing injunction.”

This was not her “first rodeo,” to use a term which at least sounds like a Texas phrase.

Her lawsuit (in pro per) claimed that the defendants had published a “litigation update” which was “misleading and contains material untruths and constitutes intentional retaliation for engaging in [her] right to speak out against the government . . . .” If you tumbled to the idea that a “litigation update” was a clue, you should pat yourself on the back for being a careful reader.

As the district court trenchantly observed, her complaint “presents a dispute that is now familiar to this [c]ourt; she has twice before sued Defendants in this [c]ourt for the same cause of action.”

According to the court, in the first case, she alleged that the defendants had sent a “pejorative email with evil intent” to residents of Lost Creek “purporting to be an update about a lawsuit she filed against Defendants.” The court in that case found essentially that the “update” was, for all intents and purposes, a simple statement of her claim, so it dismissed her case.

Of course, she appealed. And the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Within a week of the court’s order in the first case, and while her appeal was pending, Connor again sued defendants. The court found her second lawsuit “nearly identical” to the earlier one. Again, the district court dismissed, and again the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

That culminated in the June 2018 Order referred to, which dismissed her third action and set a hearing on the court’s sua sponte pre-filing injunction, and granted attorneys’ fees to be determined.

The court subsequently granted a pre-filing injunction which was, on appeal, not only affirmed but also remanded to the district court to determine costs and damages to be paid to appellees with the statement that other than the determinations of costs and sanctions, “in all caps, ‘THIS CASE IS OVER.’”

On January 27, 2020, the district court awarded, if my arithmetic is correct, a total of $43,053.25.

Meanwhile, stateside, a Travis County court heard a motion by the defendant in a different case to declare Ms. Connor a vexatious litigant.

In January 2019, defendant Douglas Hooks brought a motion there to declare Ms. Connor a vexatious litigant. One day prior to the hearing, she filed another lawsuit against Mr. Hooks “and did not mention it during the approximately one-and-a-half-hour hearing . . .” on the motion. The state court also noted that she had brought at least five lawsuits in pro per in the last seven years, all of which she lost. Coupled with the fact that the U.S. District Court had also declared her a vexatious litigant, it was an easy call.

Since she had been essentially declared persona non grata in both state and federal courts, she is now running for judge, touting her experience.

Yes, you read that correctly. She is claiming her experience as a vexatious litigant would make her a better judge. She is quoted as saying, “Having all of these experiences, I think I would make an excellent judge.”

Which proves Millar’s corollary number 27 that . . . not all experience counts.

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is Of Counsel with the firm of Friedman Stroffe & Gerard in Irvine. He can be reached at rmillar@fsglawyers.com.