AUSTIN — The cost of the high-stakes impeachment trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton is largely a question mark and will depend on the length of proceedings.
Lawyers hired by House impeachment managers to argue that Paxton should be removed from office will make $500 an hour, plus travel costs, according to public documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News.
The state’s senators, who will sit as jurors, will receive daily stipends. And while Paxton’s lead defense lawyer said he won’t be paid with public funds, he has not said how the team will be paid, including six staffers who took a leave of absence from the attorney general’s office to join their boss’s legal team.
A trial in the Senate must begin by Aug. 28 in the state’s first impeachment in nearly half a century. On Tuesday the chamber is expected to announce the rules, the possible start duration and a firmer start date.
The senators will ultimately make the final decision on whether Paxton can stay on as the state’s attorney general. He’s currently suspended from the job without pay.
Paxton, a third-term Republican with close ties to former President Donald Trump, is accused of taking bribes and abusing his office to help a campaign donor, among other alleged misdeeds.
He has denied wrongdoing and cast the impeachment proceedings initiated by fellow Republicans as an illegal attempt to thwart the will of voters, who reelected him in November.
No one knows how much the impeachment trial will end up costing Texas taxpayers, but legal experts say such expenses are critically important to self-governance.
“We are spending $25 million in construction to replace the roof of the Capitol. It’s a building,” David Gonzalez, a trial attorney who worked as a special prosecutor in a criminal case against Gov. Rick Perry, said in a written response. “I think we all believe what happens under the dome is far more valuable. Our principles. The Integrity of our Government.”
The 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton include making false statements on his personal financial records, obstructing justice by delaying a trial on securities fraud charges he’s faced since 2015, and for bribery for allegedly abusing his office to help a campaign donor.
The House Committee on General Investigating hired Rusty Hardin and Dick DeGuerin, two high-profile Houston lawyers, to make the case for removing Paxton from office.
Hardin and DeGuerin, along with any associates they tap for help, can bill the state $500 an hour, plus travel expenses, according to a copy of their contracts The News obtained through a public records request. No cost cap is written into the agreements.
Hardin, who is known for representing top athletes such as Wade Boggs, Scottie Pippen and Roger Clemens, said his team is working on the impeachment case at a fraction of normal rates. He usually bills $1,500 an hour, and partners at his firm make $850 an hour, he said.
Ultimately, Hardin said their legal services will be far cheaper than the $3.3 million Paxton requested to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that helped spark his impeachment.
“If we’re talking about who’s costing taxpayers money, we’re gonna take a real back seat,” Hardin said.
Hardin intends to bring on a paralegal and in-house investigator who he said also will be paid a lower rate. DeGuerin said he plans to tap at least one other member of his law firm.
“We’re going to try not to have an army,” Hardin said, noting that while they plan to keep expenses low, he has “no way of predicting the costs.”
State Rep. Andrew Murr, a Junction Republican who leads the House Committee on General Investigating that initiated Paxton’s impeachment, did not respond to questions about how the state will pay for the attorneys’ fees or how much is budgeted for the historic proceedings.
The hired attorneys must submit monthly invoices to Murr for the duration of their contracts, which terminate on Halloween but can be canceled sooner.
State agencies regularly contract with outside lawyers. Paxton’s own office has increasingly turned to outside counsel in recent years. For example, it has paid more than half a million dollars to private lawyers handling the whistleblower lawsuit brought by four former agency employees who accused Paxton of retaliation after they accused him of corruption.
Gonzalez said Hardin and DeGuerin, as private attorneys, have fewer conflicts of interest than a government lawyer.
They are not “using the impeachment to make a name for themselves. Neither are doing this for profit. Neither has to run for reelection,” he said. “This is the overwhelming advantage to outside counsel.”
In addition to legal expenses, state senators, including Paxton’s wife Angela Paxton, a Republican who represents Collin County, will receive their $221 per diem during the trial, Senate Secretary Patsy Spaw confirmed. For all 31 senators, the cost amounts to nearly $7,000 per day.
Paxton has also retained private lawyers to lead his defense. The Collin County Republican, who is suspended from office without pay, has not answered questions about how they’re being compensated.
“Attorney General Ken Paxton won’t use taxpayer funds to defend himself against these ridiculous and false charges,” Tony Buzbee, a Houston lawyer leading Paxton’s defense team, told The News in a statement.
Dan Cogdell, a Houston attorney defending Paxton against 8-year-old securities fraud charges, is also representing the attorney general. In addition, six staffers from the attorney general’s office, including Solicitor General Judd Stone, took a leave of absence to defend their boss.
Paxton could pay his legal bills with his campaign account, which he has used in the past to cover legal bills. As of January, his campaign account had a balance of $2.4 million, according to state filings. Or he could potentially set up a legal defense fund, a route with more stringent rules that allows monetary contributions only from family and friends.
Both steps would require public reporting through campaign finance filings or personal financial disclosures.
Buzbee told The News that Paxton will “comply with all financial disclosure requirements.”
