Issue: No. 75                                                                                                                   June 12, 2017
In this issue ....                                             PLEASE DISPLAY IMAGES ON THIS EMAIL
This issue discusses the imminent demise of straight ticket voting in Texas and how that will effect our judges.  I also share the tale of the huge loss of Galveston County District Judge Lonnie Cox before the Texas Supreme Court and the deceptive spin he is giving the disastrous end to his lawsuit that cost the county over $1.3 million in legal fees.

The "Practical, Real World Seminar" I put together for 113 of my best legal friends in May went very well.  I will offer links to the papers from that seminar in my next issue.  I received this e-mail from a Houston lawyer:

Greg, my staff loved your seminar and is already making me switch to some of your forms.  I looked at the seminar book and I want to order myself a copy for easy reference.  The paper on motions alone is worth the price of the seminar.  Thanks for your work for the family bar!  P.S. - I really appreciated your article about political influence in the family courts - everyone is talking about it.

In April, I took my ten-year old to Washington D.C. to participate in the March for Science on Earth Day and we had a blast.  We marched with 60,000 other folks concerned that our government is now  ignorant of, and hostile to, science.  We also visited museums and toured the monuments.  We had a great time and created memories we will cherish for our lifetimes.  I highly recommend the Newseum if you go to D.C.

The many clever protest signs were some of the best parts of the March for Science.

Book Reviews

I also have found some time to do some reading, all with a feminist theme. 

Divorce and child custody law in the Houston area now seems to involve more female lawyers and judges than men.  Everyone needs to occasionally appreciate how far the legal profession has evolved in the last 60 years.  "Sisters in Law" by Linda Hirshman (published in 2015) tells the story of two young women of roughly the same age, one who grew up on a lonely Arizona cattle ranch and the other on the bustling streets of Brooklyn.   Sandra Day O'Connor was born in 1930 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933.  Both women managed to get high quality educations, were married early, had children and then started legal careers at a time when courts and law firms were almost totally a man's world.   Ginsburg was rejected for a Supreme Court clerkship by Justice Felix Frankfurter despite recommendations from leading law professors because Frankfurter said,"I'm not hiring a woman. O'Connor got her law license and was offered a job as a legal secretary at a big California law firm and was told,"our clients wouldn't stand for" being represented by a woman.  Decades later, the two women sat together on the United States Supreme Court. 

O'Connor was approved by the Senate 99-0 (one senator missed the vote).  Ginsburg was approved 96 to 3.  Don't we all miss those non-partisan days?  Despite their personal political differences, the first and second women appointed to the Supreme Court became good friends.  O'Connor retired in January 2006, at the age of 75, to care for her husband who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease.  Ginsburg still hangs on to her seat on the court at age 84, presumably waiting for a Democratic President to select her replacement.  This book, now out in paperback, is most interesting in telling the stories of the female justices' legal careers and their relationship with each other.  This book should make any woman attorney today appreciate what a level playing field they now enjoy.  I thank Golda Jacob for suggesting this book to me.

Oh, What Lawyers' Daughters Can Do!

I am half way through a very entertaining murder mystery written 120 years ago by a woman trailblazer of literature.  "That Affair Next Door" was written in 1897 by Anna Katherine Green, the first famous and prolific female author of detective fiction in the United States.   Her first novel, The Leavenworth Case , is considered the first American bestseller, selling a staggering 750,000 copies over a 15-year period. Green's influence and reputation were so great at the time that Arthur Conan Doyle (who published Dr. Watson's stories about Sherlock Holmes), made a point of seeking Ms. Green out during an 1894 visit to the United States.   Born in 1846 in New York, the daughter of a prominent attorney (who was the source of her knowledge of legal and police matters), Green was college educated, which was rare for a woman of that time.  She tried writing poetry, but found no success.  She began workin g on The Leavenworth Case: A Lawyer's Story in secret and spent six years on the manuscript, an effort that resulted in overnight success and fame upon its publication. Green married and  raised a family, but still managed to turn out more than three dozen more books over the next 45 years.

Ms. Gree
n created the first fe male detective in American fiction. Her amateur spinster sleuth, Amelia Butterworth, was the inspiratio n for numerous women detectives to follow, including Agatha Christie's Miss Marple.   Nosy, opinionated, and tenacious, Amelia Butterworth helped and competed with one particular male police detective, Ebenezer Gryce,  throughout her stories.  Green was the first author to develop the murder investigation as a battle between the sexes and to entertain with a rivalry between a professional police detective and the annoyingly observant amateur.  The Affair Next Door is the novel that introduces the plucky and persistent Amelia Butterworth.   Click here to download this book for free or you can order it in Kindle format from Amazon.

Click here to read the Wikipedia article on Anna Katherine Green, a trailblazing female author of detective novels.

I do not expect to win every case.  I just want an efficient system in which my client gets a fair hearing before a judge who works hard, knows the law, and does not play favorites.  I also expect judges to appoint qualified amicus attorneys who zealously look after children (and who actually personally visit their minor clients in their homes).   Is that asking too much?  Stay tuned.
Greg Enos
The Enos Law Firm   
 The Enos Law Firm
  17207 Feather Craft Lane, Webster, Texas 77598
  (281) 333-3030    Fax: (281) 488-7775
Web site:

  Please forward this e-mail newsletter to everyone who cares about our family courts! 

Click here for an archive of past issues of
The Mongoose

  VotingThe End of Straight Ticket Voting in Texas 
 Straight-ticket voting was common in most states before the 1960s. Since then, however, it has dwindled to just eight states: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.  Now, make that seven states.  Governor Abbott signed a bill that stops  straight ticket voting in September 2020.  This change will be too late for Republican family judges running against an anti-Trump tide in 2018. Click here to read the new law that will end straight ticket voting in Texas.

In Michigan, the Legislature voted in 2016 to eliminate straight ticket voting, but a federal judge ruled that banning straight-ticket voting had a disproportionate effect on African-Americans. Michigan's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.   Click here  to read the ruling of the federal trial judge and click here to read the opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to stop the stay.  I would expect similar litigation in Texas.

If straight ticket voting does end in Texas, it is going to mostly effect large urban counties like Harris County.  Voting will take longer because of the dozens of judicial positions on the ballot.  I am a politically involved lawyer and I do not know who the civil or criminal judges are and which ones are competent.  How can a teacher or pipefitter anxious to vote for President or Senator possibly know which judicial candidates are best?  Republicans assume their voters are more likely to keep voting all the way down the ballot for "R" after "R."   I am not so sure that is a valid assumption.  This move may actually help the sleazy slate mailers (Hotze, Lowry, Polland) make money even in general elections for a while until changing demographics doom them to obsolescence.  The loss of straight ticket voting will help judicial candidates with "American" sounding names like "Roy Moore" or "David Farr" and hurt those with odd, foreign sounding names.  Female candidates tend to do worse when voters choose based simply on names. This means that in large counties, we will be trading one nonsensical reason (party affiliation) to select a judge for another (how "American" their name appears).

Apparently, Republicans in the Texas legislature assumed that one more election with straight voting in a non-presidential election year will help their team.  In Harris County, for example, the Republicans won the straight ticket voting in 2014 by a 54% to 45% margin in a non-presidential year whereas in 2016 the Democrats won straight ticket voting 53% to 45% in a presidential election year.  

My prediction is that the worry about and disgust with Trump, which drove so many to vote in 2016, will be even more intense in 2018 and change the normal dynamics of a non-presidential election year. I foresee that straight ticket voting in 2018 will be at best a wash and not give the Republicans an advantage one last time.  That is bad news for our really good Republican family court judges who are up for re-election next year.

I simply do not see Republican judicial candidates winning in Harris County after 2020.  They may all lose next year if the Trump disaster continues to tarnish the Republican brand and motivate voters disgusted by Trump to vote straight Democrat one last time.  Thus far in the Trump presidency, Democratic candidates in special elections across the county for Congress and state legislatures have overperformed their historic percentage of the vote by over 14 percentage points.  In other words, districts where Republicans usually win by 15% are being won by only 1% and districts that went for Republicans by 10% only last year are being lost to Democrats.  Click here to read a statistical analysis on this trend.  An fourteen point swing in Harris County in 2018 would result in a total Democratic sweep.  This past week's news makes me think it is going to just get worse for Trump and the GOP and unless Pence is President in November 2018, I am afraid we are going to lose some really good family court judges in Harris County.
schoolsPublic School Rankings 
Lawyers in child custody disputes often talk about which parent lives in a better school district.  The most reliable and comprehensive ranking of Texas public schools has just been updated by Children at Risk.  Click here to go to the 2017 school ranking home page then scroll down until you get to Houston and you will see links for rankings of Houston area elementary, middle and high schools (which includes Harris and surrounding counties).   You can download data files which provide a large amount of information of each school, including number of students, standardized test results, racial composition, etc.

  CoxJudge Lonnie Cox Falsely Claims Victory After His "Yuge" Loss Before the Texas Supreme Court and Then Dismisses His Frivolous Lawsuit, Thus Wasting $1.3 Million Tax Dollars 
The lawsuit which has bitterly divided Galveston County government and cost tax payers $1.3 million is now over.  A unanimous, all Republican Texas Supreme Court just blew Galveston County District Judge Cox and his frivolous lawsuit against county commissioners out of the water.  Click here to read the Supreme Court decision.  Why do I call Cox's 2015 lawsuit against County Judge Mark Henry frivolous?  First, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Cox on every legal point.  Second, Cox dismissed his case before the trial court could even reconsider the case after the Supreme Court ruling.  After forcing the county to spend over $1.3 million in legal fees to defend his lawsuit, Cox just suddenly dropped it after his total defeat before the Supreme Court.  Any reasonable settlement to the entire dispute was fought by Cox long past the point of reason or fairness.  The three county court at law judges made their own separate peace with the county even though Cox tried to prevent them.  This is why I call the Cox lawsuit frivolous.  Judges should not tolerate frivolous lawsuits and they certainly should not file them.

Judge Cox is now trying to mislead the public and pretend he won his case before the Supreme Court.  It is as if a guy asked a woman to marry him on the Jumbotron screen at an Astros' game and the lady slapped him, screamed "hell no," spit in his face and dumped her tray of nachos on his head and then the rejected suitor sent out a mass e-mail thanking the woman, saying "as a man, I could not agree more with this heart-felt response." 

This loss in the Supreme Court is absolutely not the result Cox desperately wanted and now he has the nerve to claim victory.  Galveston County Republicans are far too smart to be fooled.   To be sure, I plan to mail a copy of this article to every household that voted in the last Republican primary.
Cox sent out a mass e-mail right after the Supreme Court ruling exploded like a bomb shell at the county courthouse.  Cox, to be polite, was not honest in his e-mail.

Cox's email gives the impression that he won.  Instead, the Supreme Court concluded that Cox lost on all of his arguments.  The Supreme Court ruled that Cox should have sued all of the county commissioners and that the trial judge was wrong to do as Cox asked and order the commissioners to rehire a court administrator at a specific (and very high) salary. 

The case was sent back to the trial court as Cox said in his e-mail, but only after a total reversal, with instructions to try again and this time follow the law and do it right.  The Supreme Court  ruling was a complete loss for Cox and it is totally false for him to spin the decision any other way. 

The most brazen falsehood in the Cox e-mail was this:

As a member of the judiciary I couldn't agree more with the Supreme Court.  I'm anxious to return this case of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary back to the trial court for a final resolution in favor of the Judges.

This is a truly amazing statement for Cox to make given that his legal position was totally rejected by the Supreme Court justices (who are also, of course, judges themselves).  How could Cox truthfully say he could not agree more with the Supreme Court when they had just rejected all of his legal arguments?  In fact the Supreme Court ruled that Cox had overstepped his constitutional authority, saying:

    Here, the county's judicial branch encroached on the county's legislative branch, the Commissioners Court, which was performing a constitutionally and statutorily authorized function.   Personnel is policy, as they say, and fiscal-policy decisions, including staffing, are a quintessentially legislative prerogative. Neither the Constitution nor the Government Code allows the judiciary to usurp a county's budgeting discretion by, for example, dictating specific salaries for county employees other than within the designated range, as the Code allows. County budgets are set by county budgeters. And while section 75.401(d) authorizes the "judges served" to determine ultimately what qualifies as "reasonable compensation," step one in the process, the salary range, is "set by the commissioners court."

In this case, the trial court [acting at Cox's request] lacked the authority-constitutional, statutory, inherent, or otherwise-to require County Judge Henry to reinstate a county judicial employee at a specific salary. At most, the trial court should have directed the Commissioners Court to reset the range. As it stands, however, the trial court lacked the authority to bind the Commissioners Court in the first place, because Judge Cox failed to name anyone but Judge Henry in the request for injunctive relief. The trial court thus erred in issuing the temporary injunction.

The Supreme Court clearly told Cox that he was trying to violate the separation of powers and overstep his authority.  The case would have gone back to the trial court, but not to obtain a final order in favor of Cox.  The trial judge was told to do it over and this time follow the law.  The Supreme Court also strongly suggested that the district judges follow the example of the county court at law judges and reach a compromise.

Yet, within days of sending out his e-mail saying he looked forward to victory back before the trial court, Cox dismissed his lawsuit.  That's right, Cox lost before the Supreme Court after wasting $1.3 million of tax payer dollars on the litigation, falsely claimed victory and then dropped his lawsuit which caused the entire mess in the first place.  

For Cox to claim victory in the face of this total legal defeat before the Supreme Court is a sorry attempt to mislead the voters.  If Cox was so eager to get his case back before the trial judge, why did he dismiss his lawsuit after he lost before the Texas Supreme Court?   Cox was probably worried a fair judge would make him repay the county for the $1.3 million spent fighting his lawsuit.

Another disturbing issue arising from the mass e-mail Cox sent out is that he is being accused of using confidential juror information to add names to his e-mail database.  One citizen posted this recently on Facebook:

The citizens who care enough to show up for jury duty should not be tricked into providing their e-mail addresses so a judge can send repeated  political e-mails attacking a fellow Republican.   This allegation needs to be investigated and I sure hope this is not what Judge Cox has done.

This lawsuit arose because in 2014, County Judge Mark Henry fired the county's Director of Justice Administration, Bonnie Quiroga.  I talked to Lonnie Cox immediately after the Quiroga firing at a political function and he was not upset in the least that his judicial powers had been usurped. But, even on the day Quiroga was fired, Cox was spinning a conspiracy theory that Quiroga had been fired because she complained about video cameras in the jail that could have eavesdropped on defense lawyers and their clients.  Cox was clearly hoping Quiroga would sue the county (and she did).   I have known Bonnie Quiroga a long time and have worked with her closely on many projects and there was never any doubt that Quiroga served the various judges but she worked for the County Judge and that Mark Henry had the power to fire her (her lawsuit claims otherwise now). 

I also know that the county commissioners had in recent years made some "penny wise, pound foolish" budget moves which understandably aggravated the judges.  I do think the Republican county commissioners should treat the elected judges of their county with respect and courtesy.    Yet, almost everyone at the courthouse in 2014 was very aware of how much Cox disliked his fellow Republican Mark Henry.  Cox managed to play on the friction between Mark Henry and the other judges and create a show-down over the Quiroga firing.   Quiroga was merely a pawn in the battle between Cox and Henry.  It can be argued that the lawsuit Cox filed served a limited purpose in the beginning because it forced the county commissioners to suddenly become much more reasonable with the judges.  But nothing the commissioners did was good enough for Cox and he escalated the political tension and refused many reasonable offers to settle and make peace with his fellow Republic elected officials.  Now, Cox has dismissed his lawsuit after the Texas Supreme Court rejected each and every one of his legal arguments.

Judge Cox grossly overstepped his judicial authority, created a painful disagreement between our elected Republican officials and wasted over $1.3 million of tax payer dollars on his  lawsuit.  Cox showed that either he does not know what the law says or he does not care.  The nine Republican Justices on the Texas Supreme Court do know the law and they made clear that the constitutional limits on judicial activism must be obeyed.   The Supreme Court said,"the county's judicial branch [Judge Cox] encroached on the county's legislative branch, the Commissioners Court, which was performing a constitutionally and statutorily authorized function."   I am reminded of a U.S. Senate hearing in 2015 when Senator Ted Cruz complained about the "judicial tyranny" of activist judges who overstepped their authority and ruled based on what they wanted instead of what the law or constitution says.  Senator Cruz could have been talking about Judge Lonnie Cox when he proclaimed:

 "So long as justices on the court insist on behaving like politicians ... they should not expect to be exempt from the authority of voters who disagree with their policy decisions."

I believe that as a citizen (who happens to be a lawyer), I have the right and the duty to criticize a politician who happens to be a judge.  I am criticizing Cox for a mass email he sent out as a politician that spins his "Yuge" loss into a win based on "alternative facts" which insult the intelligence of GOP voters.   I am criticizing Cox for pretending to fight for judicial independence when he was actually grossly overstepping judicial authority as part of a political vendetta against his fellow Republican, County Judge Mark Henry.   This unanimous ruling against Cox by all nine Republican Justices on Texas' highest civil court came right after Cox announced he was running against County Judge Mark Henry in the GOP primary.  This proves what so many political observers suspected all along --  this entire lawsuit (which has cost county tax payers over $1.3 million) was simply a political power play and vendetta.   Cox was not fighting for judicial independence as he claimed, he is simply out to get Mark Henry.

I am also criticizing Judge Cox for not knowing the law.  We expect judges to know the law.  The Texas Supreme Court unanimously said Cox was absolutely wrong on the law, writing,"Texas law provides a ready answer" to the dispute between Cox and the county and that answer is what our elected county commissioners and County Judge Mark Henry have said from the beginning.  Me and others pointed out over a year ago that Cox could not just sue Mark Henry and that he should have sued all of the county commissioners to even qualify for the relief he was seeking.  The commissioners, such as Ken Clark, are our elected officials who voted on the court administration position Cox was complaining about.  A first year law student would have known that Cox had not sued necessary parties and the Texas Supreme Court agreed.  Cox did amend his petition to sue all the county commissioners (although they were not served), but only after the trial court had ruled and the case was appealed, which was too late for the Supreme Court.

Twice, Judge Cox in this dispute over the firing of Ms. Quiroga issued his own court orders against Mark Henry even though there was no pending lawsuit.  Stop and think how scary and un-American that is.  A judge does not hire a lawyer and file a case to be heard in fairness by another judge, but instead issues his own orders against his political foes, which makes him his own judge in his own case.    That is not something one expects in the United States and it clearly violates constitutional principles of fairness and due process.  Finally, even Cox realized he need to proceed through normal legal channels and he filed the lawsuit against Mark Henry, which he has now dismissed.

I am not criticizing Cox for what he does in his own courtroom as a judge (except when he issues his own orders without a pending case that benefits himself), but rather what he has done as a petty, mean spirited, dishonest politician.  I am criticizing Cox as a litigant for pursuing a frivolous  claim that has convulsed county government and wasted so much in tax payer dollars.  I may be a lawyer and Cox may be a judge, but I am confident I can call out "liar, liar pants on fire" when any politician tries to fool the public and excuse his ridiculous behavior with half-truths and distortions.  Click here to read an interesting article on the constitutional right lawyers have to criticize judges (within certain limits).   

I am also criticizing Cox for being a political bully.  I remember when Lonnie Cox ran for judge as a Democrat and spoke at black churches and union halls where he told his audiences what a good Democrat he was.  But, the political winds shifted and Cox was one of the first Republicans elected county-wide.  Cox is now considered the "God Father" of local GOP politics (in a "don't dare cross Don Corleone" kind of godfatherly way).  Cox cannot stand that some of his fellow judges have not gone along with his tactics and he has recruited primary opponents for some.  For example, Cox has talked a young lawyer, who works in Houston and who has ZERO criminal law experience, to run against Judge Patricia Grady (who hears important felony criminal cases) just because Judge Grady did not agree with Cox's fight against the county commissioners.

Judge Lonnie Cox and  Judge Michelle Slaughter pose with former Houston mayoral candidate Bill King, whose daughter has been recruited by Cox to run against Judge Patricia Grady.

 I am not the only person to have called Cox a bully.  Here is what Friendswood Republican attorney Byron Fulk told the Houston Chronicle in 2012:

Mr. Fulk is a respected Republican lawyer who runs the Friendswood Community Prayer Breakfast.  Click here to read the entire Houston Chronicle article on Cox.
Our three Republican county court at law judges, Barbara Roberts, Jack Ewing and John Grady, dropped out of the fight with county commissioners and made their own peace months ago so that they could focus on fairly running their courts and not picking wasteful political fights.   In fact, Cox actually filed a motion with the Supreme Court to prevent Judges Roberts, Ewing and John Grady from cooperating with the county commissioners to create their own office of county court administration.  Click here to read the motion filed by Cox to prevent the orderly and lawful cooperation among elected officials to partially resolve the dispute.  Click here to read Mark Henry's reply to Cox's motion, which includes a letter signed by the three county court at law judges.  The Supreme Court rejected Cox's motion, so the county court at law judges were able to proceed with their compromise with the county commissioners.  These filings to stop a reasonable settlement by judges no longer willing to follow Cox's lead show Cox was only out to cause conflict and not really resolve the problem.  Now that Cox has dismissed his lawsuit, the district judges can hopefully take advantage of the court administration department the county created for them and surely our elected leaders can agree on the salary for the head of that department.

A few judges are scared of Cox politically and a few think they owe their political careers to Cox.  Now, over half of our elected, Republican judges in Galveston County are willing to not follow the misguided leadership of Judge Cox.  It is time that everyone stood up to Cox.  I am a lawyer who practices mostly in Galveston County, so calling out Cox for what he is doing may involve some risks for me, but it is something everyone who cares about honest, efficient, common-sense government should do.

My Republican neighbors in Friendswood, where I live now, and in League City, where I lived for so long and raised a family, should not be fooled by Cox's attempts to deceive them.  Their elected County Judge and County Commissioners won this case, but only after being forced to spent about $1.3 million of tax payer dollars to defend this frivolous lawsuit filed by Cox for the wrong reasons against the wrong defendant.  The county's legal fees do seem high to me (I am a divorce lawyer who charges by the hour), but the county had to hire a high powered law firm to win a case before the Supreme Court (and boy, did their expensive lawyers kick ass!).  None of those attorney's fees would have been incurred by the county if Cox had not filed his frivolous lawsuit which he has now dismissed after his big defeat before the Supreme Court.

The voters should read the words of their Texas Supreme Court and not believe the self-serving, misleading claims of Lonnie Cox.  Click here to read the full Supreme Court decision, which easily resolved the dispute between Cox and Mark Henry just as Mark Henry and county commissioners suggested.  

Meanwhile, the battle between Cox and Mark Henry will go on, since Cox is running against Mark Henry in the 2018 GOP primary for County Judge, even though Cox was just re-elected district judge last year.  Judge Cox has decided he does not have to give up his bench to run against Mark Henry and now he is wearing two hats - sitting judge hearing cases and politician seeking election to run the county government.  I am sure I will have more to say about that fight in future editions of this newsletter.

Disclaimer: I am friends with folks on both sides of this controversy, including the few judges who still support Cox, and the judges who disagree with him (and a few who are too scared to do so in public).  I am friends with Bonnie Quiroga who was fired and also with Mark Henry who fired her (I have represented Henry in the past).  Judge Michelle Slaughter, for example, still agrees with Judge Cox and I gave her the first big contribution of her original campaign to run for judge.  I have helped the campaigns of most of our Republican judges and I agree with them on most issues.  I just disagree as a person, a citizen and a lawyer with this mess Cox created and I am repulsed by his attempts to deceive the voters about what he has done.

Again, I am writing as a concerned citizen about a very important public policy issue that is now a political controversy.  I am criticizing Lonnie Cox for what he has done as a litigant and a politician.  Except for trying to issue his own order for himself against Mark Henry when there was no pending case, I am not attacking Cox for his actions in his role as a judge hearing cases in his own court.  Until the voters or some other authority removes Cox from office, he is due respect when he puts on the black judge's robe and hears cases in his courtroom.  I just know that Judge Cox in his own court would never tolerate for a second a litigant before him who filed a frivolous lawsuit, who tried to twist the facts and the law, who refused to settle, who caused the defense to spend $1.3 million fighting the lawsuit and who then just dismissed the entire case as soon as he lost in the Supreme Court.   That is lawsuit abuse plain and simple.   Judge Cox would not put up with that behavior from a litigant in his court and neither should the voters of Galveston County.  We should expect more from our judges.
linksUseful Links for Lawyers
Harris County Vacation Request Form
HBA Family Section Summary of Harris County Family Court Procedures

be him
Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and  child custody battle (he won) and understands  what his clients are going through.  Enos  graduated from the University of Texas Law  School and was a successful personal injury  attorney in Texas City be fore he decided his true  calling was to help families in divorce and child  custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities.  He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of  Interfaith Caring Ministries.  The Enos Law Firm serves clients in Galveston County, Brazoria County and Harris County, Texas.  

Greg Enos

Board Certified in Family Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization

The Enos Law Firm