Representative Cases

Hospital Antitrust. Mr. Baker represented a group of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) who were to be excluded from their practice at a hospital due to an exclusive provider contract (“the contract”). During a hearing on his client’s request for a temporary injunction, Mr. Baker established that the hospital had acted in an anti-competitive manner in granting the contract, and that the anesthesiologists to whom the contract had been awarded were lacking in experience and had caused patient injuries and possible deaths. The trial judge found that the hospital had violated the antitrust statute and granted a temporary injunction finding that the implementation of the contract posed a risk to the safety of the public. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker represented an individual in a contested custody case, in which the trial judge had awarded primary custody of the child to the other party following an initial temporary orders hearing. Mr. Baker did not represent the client at the initial temporary orders hearing. During trial, Mr. Baker exposed a number of significant inconsistencies in the other party’s testimony and claims, and obtained through cross examination, a concession from the opposing party’s testifying psychologist that the other party was probably not a suitable candidate for primary conservator of the child. The trial judge awarded custody of the child to Mr. Baker’s client.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker assumed representation of an individual in a contested custody case, in which the trial judge had indicated that he was going to award primary custody of the child to the parties’ adult child. Mr. Baker substituted for the prior attorney, and made numerous procedural and substantive objections, and the judge reconsidered his earlier inclination to place the child with the parties’ adult child. Following a number of hearings before the Court, Mr. Baker’s client received custody of the child.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker represented an individual whose children were divided into a split custody arrangement following an earlier court proceeding. Mr. Baker did not represent the individual in the earlier court proceeding. In the subsequent case, the social study investigator recommended that the children be allowed to live with the opposing party. During trial, Mr. Baker demonstrated that the other parent utilized poor parenting techniques with the children and raised numerous other issues establishing that the best interests of the children were served by placing the children with his client. Mr. Baker also demonstrated that the social study investigator had deviated from the standards applicable to social study investigations and therefore, her recommendations were unreliable. Following the trial, the trial judge awarded custody of the children to Mr. Baker’s client.

Contested Property Division. Mr. Baker represented an individual in a contested property division case, which resulted in a favorable property division for Mr. Baker’s client. During trial, Mr. Baker established that the opposing party had utilized a separate corporation to defraud the community estate of its fair share of community assets. Mr. Baker also established that the opposing party’s claims of separate property were invalid due to the opposing party’s failure to overcome the community property presumption, by properly tracing and proving the separate property nature of the contested items of property. The trial court’s division of assets was upheld by the Dallas Court of Appeals on appeal.