AUSTIN – The taxpayer cost of impeaching Ken Paxton is north of $4.3 million, documents show, breaking a symbolic barrier that likely will be used as political ammo against politicians that supported the effort to unseat the attorney general.
Invoices and receipts released to late Wednesday show more than 24 lawyers worked to prosecute Paxton leading up to and during his two-week long impeachment trial in September. The Senate cleared Paxton of all charges.
Lawyers billed more than 7,800 hours of work related to Paxton’s impeachment, including his prosecution, a related lawsuit and an attorney who assisted Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in his capacity as judge of the trial, according to documents. Taxpayers will pay for all of it.
Reached late Wednesday, co-lead counsel Dick DeGuerin defended the amount of work, noting that his and co-lead counsel Rusty Hardin’s $500-an-hour rate was far below what they typically charge. Hardin unleashed nearly the full capacity of his Houston law firm on the case, and did not bill for hundreds of hours of work conducted by his staff, according to invoices from his firm.
“Everything we did was justified and I won’t retreat from that statement ever,” DeGuerin said. “We presented strong evidence that Paxton just surrendered the power of his office in a corrupt way. It’s just that his financial supporters threatened retaliation against the Republicans that would have voted for conviction.”
The $4.3 million price tag for impeachment presents the fullest account to date of the cost of impeachment, but likely is not complete. Documents returned to The News via an open records request did not include invoices for at least one attorney involved in Paxton’s prosecution.
However, it tops the $3.3 million proposed in a whistleblower settlement that triggered the impeachment effort. Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Four top deputies in Paxton’s office sued for wrongful termination after they were fired for reporting their former boss to the FBI. Their allegations of how Paxton used the office for the benefit of friend and campaign donor Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer under federal indictment, formed the backbone of the articles of impeachment.
After Paxton went to the Legislature this year requesting the money be included in the budget for the Office of the Attorney General, members of the House began to question what led to the whistleblowers’ firing.
The House General Investigating Committee secretly opened an investigation into Paxton that culminated in 20 articles of impeachment that the House approved overwhelmingly on May 27. Documents show the committee spent roughly $310,000 on the lawyers who investigated Paxton.
The House members who managed Paxton’s impeachment prosecution then hired DeGuerin and Hardin, legendary Houston lawyers, to lead the prosecution. Their work includes representing professional athletes, Enron, David Koresh and Tom DeLay.
Hardin used at least 20 employees of his firm and billed $3 million. DeGuerin and another attorney in his firm billed about $380,000.
“The amount of our fees are a drop in the bucket compared to the loss of money and integrity caused by the misconduct of Paxton,” Hardin said. “The jury verdict the whistleblowers will ultimately recover in their law suits will far exceed any money the House spent on the Impeachment effort.”
Following the verdict, Patrick called for an audit of the impeachment process, criticizing the effort. At Patrick’s request, the State Auditor’s Office recently launched an audit of the process, according to The Texas Newsroom.
Paxton, now back in office, is working to unseat several House members who voted for his impeachment.
Staff for House Rep. Andrew Murr, the Junction Republican who chaired the House committee that investigated Paxton and the managers who prosecuted the attorney general, did not respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday. Murr recently announced he is not seeking re-election.
Despite the outcome, DeGuerin said he had no regrets.
The verdict, he said, “was not a decision based on conscience or evidence. It was based on fear.”
Of the effort, Deguerin said, “It was worth it.”
