CURRICULUM VITAE

Peter served on the law review at Texas Tech and also served as an associate editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He clerked at The Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia, a non-profit law firm specializing in First Amendment litigation regarding religious liberty.

Peter started out practicing personal-injury law in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. It was trial by fire as he was designated as lead counsel in six-figure cases just two weeks after starting work in a small firm in the Oak Cliff area. Since then, he has gained extensive experience in many areas of law, handling a variety of complex matters at the trial level and also on appeal in state and federal court. Peter is admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In 2000, Peter attended Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyer's College in Dubois, Wyoming. The trial college changed the way Peter tried cases. Shortly after completing that course work, he tried two cases to verdict which resulted in judgments of $1.3 million (personal injury) and $2.3 million (antitrust). In 2019, he secured a civil judgment totaling over $1 million, including interest and attorney’s fees, in a case where the opposing party had asserted counterclaims totaling over $1 million. The opposing party was awarded nothing.

After years of depositions, hearings, and trials in civil practice, Peter turned his attention to the criminal defense of the accused. He has since represented individuals charged with bank fraud, healthcare fraud, wire fraud, drug-related crimes, and violent felonies. He has handled an extensive number of federal appeals, and has orally argued several appeals at the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. He is a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit, and has carried an AV-rating (its highest) from Martindale-Hubble since 2010.

A FEW REPRESENTATIVE FEDERAL APPEALS

• Obtained a federal sentencing reversal which struck over seventeen conditions of supervised release. United States v. Chavez, __ F.Appx.__ (5th Cir. 2022).

• Obtained a federal sentencing reversal involving the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Client later received a 50-month reduction in her sentence. United States v. Roddy, __F.Appx.__ (5th Cir. 2020).

• Obtained a federal sentencing reversal in the Fifth Circuit involving two issues of first impression. United States v. Eaden, 914 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir. 2019).

• Obtained a federal sentencing reversal regarding the Armed Career Criminal Act. Client’s 180-month sentence was reduced to time served. United States v. Elrod, 730 F. Appx. 239 (5th Cir. 2018).

• Obtained reversal of a restitution order $135,283.11, payable to the victims. This was an issue of first impression and the Fifth Circuit held that restitution was limited to the specific temporal scope of the indictment. This decision has likely has cost the Government billions of dollars over the years. United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2005).

• Prosecuted an appeal over the issue of qualified immunity for a sheriff’s actions to shoot-to-kill a teenager who had stolen a truck. We lost the appeal, but we take on difficult cases like this all the time. Thompson v. Sheriff Ira A. Mercer, 762 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2014).

A FEW REPRESENTATIVE STATE APPEALS

• Successfully defended a trial court’s judgment where we had obtained a joint-and-several damage award against three defendants for more than $750,000. The defendants had counterclaimed for over $1 million, and the court of appeals sustained take-nothing judgments against all of them. Wylie v. Simmons, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10461 (Dec. 2020).

• Retained after the trial lawyer lost a bench trial, we were able to persuade the court of appeals to vacate two categories of damages which wound up cutting the overall judgment by more than half. Alexander v. Kent, 480 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.).

• Retained after a district court entered judgment based upon a disputed settlement agreement, we obtained a complete reversal of the judgment by arguing that Texas law does not recognize any special summary proceeding for the enforcement of a written settlement agreement. Pena, v. Smith, 321 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.).

A FEW REPRESENTATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

• Obtained a jury verdict of approximately $1 million (including attorney’s fees) involving the sale of an accounting practice. Wylie v. Simmons, No. 02-19-00241-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 31, 2020).

• Secured a trebled jury verdict involving an antitrust claim against a foreign tool manufacturer. Air Power Tool & Hoist, Inc. v. Atlas Copco Tools, Inc.

• Obtained a decision of non-prosecution for a client accused of embezzling union funds. Co-defendant was convicted, sentenced, and ordered to pay a six-figure sum of restitution. United States v. John Doe (N.D.T.X. 2018).

• Argued for and obtained a 36-month reduction in a Guideline calculation resulting in a reduced sentence. United States v. Janicek (N.D.T.X. 2017).

• Obtained a reversal and remand in a federal criminal appeal for an improper Guideline calculation. United States v. Harris, 597 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2010).

• Obtained a jury verdict of over $1 million for a leasing agent who was shot on the premises after having served an eviction notice. The verdict was notable because the client’s injuries were not life-threatening.

ADMISSIONS

• Texas State Courts

• Northern District of Texas

• Eastern District of Texas

• Western District of Texas

• Southern District of Texas

• Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

ASSOCIATIONS

• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

• Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit

• Federal Bar Association

• The Rutherford Institute, clerkship

• Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College (2000)

• AV-Preeminent rated. AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards