Houston, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — According to Stop Legal Bullying Now, LLC, the Texas Supreme Court is being asked to review a Houston family’s legal battle arising from a probate representation that ultimately produced a multimillion-dollar arbitration award and an order affecting assets held in their late father’s trust.
Caroline Allison and Richard Allison Jr. have filed a Petition for Review asking the state’s highest civil court to examine what they say are fundamental questions about who can be forced into arbitration, which lawyers can benefit from an arbitration agreement they did not sign, and whether an arbitrator can reach trust assets belonging to or controlled by people and entities that were not parties to the underlying contracts.
The dispute involves Houston attorneys Michael A. Trevino, Nicholas Abaza, and Jorge Borunda and has been the subject of Dolcefino Media’s ongoing Damn Lawyers investigation. The investigative series recently released its seventh installment, Damn Lawyers: Rigged Arbitration?
From Probate Representation to a Multimillion-Dollar Judgment
The dispute began after the death of the Allisons’ father and litigation involving his estate and trust. The Allisons contend that attorneys encouraged litigation they say was unnecessary and enormously expensive, despite an inheritance that was already protected through a trust.
“The lawyers basically manufactured a conflict when there was none,” said Caroline Allison. “We were led into years of litigation that generated enormous legal fees. What began as a request for help settling our father’s estate ultimately put millions of dollars of family assets at risk.”
The family later pursued claims including legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. But those claims never reached a jury.
The Arbitration Question
The malpractice dispute was sent to private arbitration based on language contained in attorney engagement agreements—the kind of mandatory arbitration clause the family says traps clients before a dispute ever arises. That decision has become one of the central issues the Allisons are asking the Texas Supreme Court to examine. According to the family, only limited parties signed the agreements containing the arbitration provisions, while additional lawyers and law firms that allegedly never signed those agreements ultimately sought and received relief through the arbitration. The Allisons argue that the threshold question should have been decided by a court: Who actually agreed to arbitrate with whom?
They contend that allowing nonsignatories to obtain arbitration awards without a court first determining whether an agreement to arbitrate existed undermines one of the most basic principles of contract law—consent.
Allegations of Undisclosed Arbitrator Conflicts
Former Texas judge and Dallas arbitrator Anne Ashby presided over the arbitration. The Allisons allege that Ashby’s disclosures failed to fully reveal relationships and circumstances they believe should have been disclosed before she heard the case. The family’s investigators have described this as a stench of cronyism surrounding the proceeding, calling into question the legitimacy and ethics of the decision.
The family contends that evidence concerning those alleged nondisclosures was discovered only after the arbitration proceedings had concluded, once Ashby had issued an award favoring the attorneys.
The Allisons further claim that the resulting proceedings reached beyond the individuals involved in the fee dispute and placed assets associated with their father’s trust at risk in order to satisfy the judgment. That issue, they say, transforms the case from an ordinary attorney-client fee dispute into a much larger constitutional and property-rights question.
Texas Supreme Court Review Sought
Texas’ Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment in December 2025. The Allisons have now asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the case.
Their Petition for Review raises questions concerning arbitration consent, nonsignatories, judicial review of arbitrability, and the legal protections afforded to trust property.
“We are not asking the Supreme Court to eliminate arbitration,” Allison said. “We’re asking the Court to make clear that arbitration still requires consent, that lawyers cannot use arbitration as a shield from accountability, and that private arbitration cannot become a shortcut for taking property from people or entities that never agreed to be there.”
“If an arbitrator can decide who is bound by a contract, expand the proceeding beyond the people who signed it, and reach protected family assets while courts simply defer to the result, Texans need to know where the limits are,” she continued.
Arbitration Reform Becomes Legislative Issue
Allison, founder of Stop Legal Bullying, is also urging Texas lawmakers to examine reforms aimed at attorney accountability, probate litigation and mandatory arbitration.
The proposals include:
- Robin’s Law: Would restrict or prohibit contingency-fee arrangements in certain probate and inheritance disputes where the financial incentives could encourage unnecessary litigation.
- Attorney Malpractice Insurance Disclosure: Would require Texas attorneys either to maintain professional liability insurance or clearly disclose to prospective clients that they do not carry it.
- Texas Attorney Complaint Preservation Act: Would increase transparency surrounding attorney disciplinary complaints and preserve complaint records so patterns of repeated allegations are not lost.
- Arbitration Fairness Act (Family & Probate Edition): Would restrict lawyers from requiring clients to waive jury-trial rights through mandatory arbitration provisions buried in attorney engagement agreements.
- Fraud and Conflict-of-Interest Protection: Would create a meaningful procedure for courts to review arbitration awards when material fraud, concealed conflicts, or arbitrator misconduct is discovered after an arbitration has concluded.
Allison says the reforms are aimed at a larger problem exposed by her family’s experience.
“Texas has laws designed to protect clients, estates, trusts, and consumers,” she said. “Those protections should not disappear simply because a lawyer placed an arbitration clause in an engagement agreement.”
Media Availability
Caroline Allison is available for media interviews regarding the Petition for Review and the broader implications for Texas consumers. Disciplinary filings and supporting investigative materials are also available for review upon request.
Stop Legal Bullying Now, LLC stoplegalbullying@pm.me
