Nueces County court authorizes outside counsel as DA removal petition proceeds

The Nueces County Commissioners Court voted April 12 to authorize hiring outside counsel to represent the county and assist District Attorney Mark Gonzales as a petition to remove him advances.

The vote followed hours of public comment and legal discussion. Supporters of Gonzales urged the court to provide defense costs, citing past practice and the high stakes for an elected official. Opponents raised questions about precedent, potential criminal‑style allegations in the petition and the fiscal exposure of using county funds for an elected official’s defense.

Gonzales appeared in court and said he had previously retained counsel and wanted representation he trusts. His attorney on Zoom, Christopher Gale, told the court that Texas law and case history require counties to provide representation to officials sued for acts arising from their duties and that the court is obliged to pay. County legal advisers and outside counsel told commissioners the issue is legally complicated: Texas Local Government Code section 157.901 has been interpreted in different ways, and removal proceedings are treated by courts as “quasi‑criminal,” which can change the analysis about county payment of fees.

Faced with conflicting advice and a pending request for an Attorney General opinion, commissioners voted to authorize outside counsel selected or approved by the court, instructing staff to return with proposed engagement terms (including a fee cap and reimbursement mechanism). Commissioners also directed that any billings and invoices be handled in a manner that preserves attorney‑client confidentiality for the DA while ensuring the county can audit fees and avoid procedural conflicts with the county attorney’s office.

County counsel explained the court retains discretion under common law to spend county funds when the expenditure serves the county’s interests and is not merely a personal benefit to the official. Commissioners agreed the county has an interest in a stable, functional criminal justice system and in ensuring the DA can respond to complex legal petitions without bearing crippling personal legal expense.

The court also asked the DA to propose a short list of potential counsel for approval; commissioners said they would consider those names but retain final approval authority and would set fee limits. If Gonzales prevails and legal fees are recovered from the petitioner, commissioners said recoveries should be reimbursed to the county.

The petition for removal and related filings are pending. County staff requested (and the court authorized) a careful process for selecting counsel, clarifying engagement letters, segregating billed work that the county will pay from any work deemed personal to the DA, and returning to the court with a proposed cap and contract terms for formal approval.

The court’s action does not determine the merits of the removal petition; it authorizes a funding and procurement path for legal representation while the dispute proceeds.