The Best Lawyers in America® Recognizes Bickerstaff Attorneys in 2027 Edition

The Best Lawyers in America® has included seven Bickerstaff attorneys across multiple practice areas in its 2027 edition.

Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer review surveys designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical region and practice area.

Congratulations to our attorneys who were named in the 2027 guide:

Stefanie P. Albright – Water Law

Philip B. Arnold – Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law

Cobby A. Caputo – Litigation-Municipal

Douglas G. Caroom – Water Law

Bill Dugat – Water Law

Emily W. Rogers – Water Law

Gunnar P. Seaquist – Litigation-Labor and Employment

BHDA Attorneys Named to 2026 Best Lawyers in America®

Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta is pleased to announce that seven of the firm’s attorneys have been included in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer review surveys designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical region and practice area.

Below are the BHDA attorneys listed in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Philip B. Arnold – Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law

Cobby A. Caputo – Litigation-Municipal

Douglas G. Caroom – Water Law

Bill Dugat – Water Law

C. Robert Heath – Administrative/Regulatory Law

Emily W. Rogers – Water Law

Gunnar P. Seaquist – Litigation-Labor and Employment

The Best Lawyers in America® Recognizes Seven BHDA Attorneys in 2025 Edition

BHDA is pleased to announce the recognition of seven attorneys in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Selection is based entirely on peer review surveys from thousands of attorneys who evaluate the legal abilities of other lawyers within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Lawyers are not required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a significant honor.

The Best Lawyers in America® Recognizes Seven BHDA Attorneys in 2024 Edition

BHDA is pleased to announce the recognition of seven attorneys in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. This edition includes the largest number of attorney selections from the Firm and marks the addition of five first-year honorees.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Selection is based entirely on peer review surveys from thousands of attorneys who evaluate the legal abilities of other lawyers within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Lawyers are not required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a significant honor.

BHDA Wins Important Ruling on Water Rights Ownership in Texas Supreme Court Case

BHDA partners from the litigation and water practice groups, Doug Caroom, Susan Maxwell, and Gunnar Seaquist, represented Pape Partners, Ltd., petitioners, in a water rights case heard by the Supreme Court of Texas on March 24, 2022. Counsel from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG), on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), also briefed and argued in support of the reversal sought by the petitioners. On Friday, May 20, 2022, the Court issued its opinion, ordering the lower courts’ jurisdictional ruling reversed and remanded. An overview of the Court’s opinion is below, and the entire opinion can be found here. Oral arguments by Mr. Seaquist and the OAG before the Court can be watched here.

On May 20, 2022, in Pape Partners, Ltd. v. DRR Family Properties LP, the Supreme Court of Texas delivered its opinion, which held that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) does not have the authority (under its general jurisdiction over water and water rights adjudication) to decide conflicting claims to ownership of already issued surface-water rights. The Court’s opinion stated the “adjudication of such claims is for the courts, not the agency,” and thus reversed the 2020 majority ruling by the Waco Court of Appeals affirming dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims based on TCEQ’s exclusive jurisdiction to decide private property rights disputes over surface water rights ownership. This clarification of TCEQ’s role in administering existing surface water rights has statewide impact for water rights owners and other stakeholders throughout Texas.

The Constitutional Avoidance Canon of Statutory Construction

Attorney Gunnar P. Seaquist authored a paper on the Constitutional Avoidance Canon of Statutory Construction for the State Bar of Texas Litigation Section Report, The Advocate, Vol. 71, Summer 2015. In the paper, Mr. Seaquist discusses the foundation of the canon, the substantive provisions of the constitutional avoidance doctrine, and the application and practice criticisms of the avoidance doctrine.

Texas Third Court of Appeals rules failure to claim attorney-client privilege is not a waiver of privilege under the Public Information Act

By C. Robert Heath and Gunnar P. Seaquist

In a significant shift from prior attorney general decisions, the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Abbott v. City of Dallas ruled that failure to claim the attorney-client privilege within the ten-day period does not result in a waiver of the privilege for purposes of the Public Information Act. The Court reasoned that the attorney-client information was “confidential under other law” and was protected from required disclosure not only under Government Code 552.107, the attorney-client privilege exemption, but also under Government Code 552.101, the exemption for information made confidential by law. If information is confidential under section 552.101, which under this new case includes information protected by the attorney-client privilege, then that is sufficient to overcome the presumption of openness that attaches when a governmental body fails to request a ruling from the attorney general within ten business days of receiving a public information request. While governmental bodies will still need to submit documents to the attorney general when they assert the information is an attorney-client communication excepted from public disclosure under the Public Information Act, the failure to meet the ten-day deadline should not result in a determination that the privilege was waived by the delayed request for a decision.

The court of appeals opinion included a dissent, and it seems likely the attorney general will ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.