Judge to Continue Hearing on Motion to Suppress Attorney-Client Recording After Alleged Threats in San Antonio Custody Case

A judge in Bexar County on July 28 continued arguments on a defense motion to suppress a recorded conversation between defendant Ronald Lamar Allen and his former civil attorney, Charles Michael Ireland Jr., after testimony from the former attorney and a law-enforcement investigator.

The issue before the court was whether portions of the recording were protected by attorney-client privilege or fell under an exception because, prosecutors say, Allen threatened violence in connection with an upcoming custody hearing. Prosecutors and defense counsel agreed the recording exists and the court admitted it as State's Exhibit 1 for the hearing.

The recording contains a statement that prosecutors and the attorney who recorded the meeting described in the hearing as a threat. In the recording, Allen says, "you bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere, bro." Charles Michael Ireland Jr., the lawyer who recorded and later provided the file to investigators, told the court he believed the statement met the professional-ethics exception that requires a lawyer to report a client's planned violent act. Ireland testified he called the State Bar ethics hotline and his outside counsel, who both advised him he had a mandatory duty to report under the disciplinary rule he cited.

Investigator Che Lopez of the sheriff's office testified she reviewed the recording and the civil docket showing a temporary-orders hearing set for April 23, 2025. Lopez said she believed the recording specified both a date and a courthouse context and that a warrant was later generated based on the statements and her investigation. The court admitted a docket slip showing the April 23 hearing as State's Exhibit 2 and the warrant as State's Exhibit 5.

Defense counsel argued the recorded conversation occurred during a confidential civil-law consultation and asserted attorney-client privilege. Counsel pressed that the recording was made without Allen's knowledge in the attorney's office and that Ireland's decision to record and then provide the file to law enforcement breached confidentiality. Ireland acknowledged recording Allen without telling him and said he had not previously recorded clients commonly, though he had recorded occasionally in 13 years of practice.

The judge heard testimony from Ireland and Investigator Lopez, accepted multiple exhibits for the limited purpose of the suppression hearing, and said she would rule after hearing argument. The court scheduled further argument the following morning, stating it would take up the motion to suppress first and then the motion to dismiss.

Why it matters: The hearing turns on the interplay between attorney-client confidentiality and the exception for communications made in furtherance of criminal conduct. The court's ruling could affect what evidence prosecutors may use in any criminal case that follows from the recording and may shape how attorneys assess reporting duties in similar civil-law settings.

No final ruling was issued at the hearing; the court said it would hear argument and issue a decision on the suppression and related dismissal motion at the next scheduled session.

Details and next steps: The court admitted the recording for the hearing and allowed testimony about its content and context. The judge ordered both sides to be prepared to argue the suppression and dismissal motions at the next session. The prosecutor produced the investigator and the attorney as witnesses; the defense called Allen to testify at the hearing. The court asked parties to be ready to proceed the next morning with argument.