William A. Brewer III

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Reports on Voting Rights Lawsuit Against Keller ISD

February 14, 2025 – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Brewer Storefront filed a lawsuit against the Keller Independent School District (KISD) in federal court on behalf of plaintiff and Keller parent Claudio Vallejo, alleging that the district's at-large election system violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The article states that the at-large electoral system dilutes the votes of minority voters, particularly Hispanic voters. The report also referred to the current "uproar" over a proposal to split Keller ISD in half, seeking to separate the relative more affluent and white east side from the less affluent, more racially diverse west side. Five of Keller's seven board members reside on the east side. 

Attorney William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer Storefront and lead counsel for Vallejo, provided a statement to the Star-Telegram: “The at-large election system used by Keller ISD dilutes the votes of the significant number of Hispanic citizens. Given the racial polarization that exists, white voters are able to block Hispanic voters from electing school board candidates of their choosing — those who would best represent their schools, children and community. As the controversial proposal to split the district in two underscores, the consequence of the at-large voting scheme is a collection of white trustees who are out of touch with the needs of the majority of the children who attend KISD schools.”

Read more here.

Brewer Star-Telegram Op-Ed Urges Keller ISD to Abandon At-Large Voting

February 6, 2025 — Brewer Storefront Chairman William Brewer writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that at-large election systems disadvantage minority voters. He points to the use of at-large voting to elect school board trustees in the Keller Independent School District as one example of how at large voting systems fail voters. 

"The controversy surrounding a proposal to break up the Keller Independent School District raises fresh concerns about a voting system widely recognized as discriminatory: at-large voting," Brewer writes in the opening of the opinion piece.

Brewer writes that if the more racially diverse west side of the school district was better represented on the school board, a discussion about splitting the school district would not be happening as it currently is. 

He suggests that cumulative voting and single-member districts offer a remedy to violations of the Voting Rights Act, for Keller ISD and other school boards. 

"Even casual observers know that at-large voting schemes — in which officials are elected across an entity rather than to represent specific districts — typically result in power being consolidated in the 'majority' of voters to the exclusion of even sizable minorities in communities," Brewer writes.

He suggests that cumulative voting offers a more equitable solution and writes that "if a school board election is for three seats, a voter could cast all three votes for a single candidate. This enables smaller but cohesive voting blocs to secure representation, ensuring their voices are heard in decision-making."

Brewer concludes that, "[Keller ISD] Trustees should shelve their plans to dismantle the district and adopt a voting system that enables participation of those whose views will better reflect the students the district is failing."

Read the op-ed here.

Star-Telegram Reports on Keller ISD, Potential Brewer Storefront Legal Challenge

January 24, 2025 – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports today on emerging legal issues within the Keller Independent School District. The reporting chronicles the work of the Brewer Storefront, the legal community service affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, and notes the Storefront’s many successful cases under the Voting Rights Act.

As reported, “At issue is the district’s [Keller ISD] at-large places in which voters select candidates from across the district to fill open school board seats. Some experts believe at-large elections unfairly favor majority voting blocs and therefore violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was established to ensure all registered voters have an equal voice.”

The alternative would be a single-member system in which voters elect representatives from subdistricts within the larger district. Over the past several years, legal challenges based on interpretations of the Voting Rights Act have pushed at least five North Texas school districts to change their electoral systems, says the article.

William Brewer, founding partner of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, said several Keller school district residents had reached out to his firm about challenging the election rules. Those inquiries were in response to a recent proposal to split the district in half, using Denton Highway as the dividing line. The plan was met with overwhelming opposition from parents at a Jan. 16 board meeting. The next public hearing is scheduled for Jan. 30.

Brewer’s firm has successfully initiated the move away from at-large voting in the Lewisville, Richardson, Carrollton-Farmers Branch, Irving and Grand Prairie school districts. He said he plans to file the lawsuit within 45 to 60 days.

“The law says in order to force a change, you need to establish preconditions,” Brewer said. “You have to show that voting is polarized — that whites are voting for whites, Hispanics prefer voting for Hispanics and Blacks are voting for Blacks. Then you have to be able to draw districts around subgroups that are contiguous and compact. Those preconditions seem to be present in Keller.”

Read more here.

New York Times Reports on NRA, Legal Advocacy

December 5, 2024 – The New York Times reports today, in part, about the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and its “advocacy” in defense of its independence. As many of you know, in August 2020 the New York Attorney General (NYAG) filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against Brewer client the NRA.

Amid questions about the NRA’s legal strategy, firm partner William A. Brewer III noted that Brewer, with the support of NRA leadership, helped the Association successfully “confront a barrage of blue-state regulatory investigations,” including an effort by New York regulators to eliminate the group. The NYAG’s dissolution claims against the NRA were dismissed, and her bid for a court-appointed monitor was rejected by the court earlier this year.

 Brewer told The Times:

“My firm handles bet-the-company, life or death advocacy. The NRA called and we helped them confront a barrage of blue-state regulatory investigations, a promised ‘corporate death penalty’ dissolution effort in New York, sweeping Russia-gate congressional inquiries, and a debanking effort condemned by the entire Supreme Court. Today, more than six years later, the NRA still stands – independent and free. We’re proud of that outcome, which we count as a win."

Read more here.

Brewer, Volokh Comment on First Amendment Case

November 26, 2024 – Firm Partner William A. Brewer and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh posted an update on the NRA’s First Amendment lawsuit against former New York financial regulator Maria T. Vullo. The report appears on REASON, as a segment of Professor Volokh’s blog, “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

In setting the stage for a successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the two write, “We were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as the NRA appealed this ruling to the United States Supreme Court for the NRA. In a rebuke from a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor revived the NRA's claims this past June, emphasizing decades of precedent that "[a] government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." Moreover, the Court said, Vullo's alleged conduct struck at the heart of this prohibition. In light of the Court's guidance on the First Amendment merits of the NRA's allegations, Sotomayor added, the Second Circuit was free to reconsider the issue of qualified immunity, i.e., whether Vullo's alleged violations were such that the NRA should be able to sue her individually for damages.”

Read the report here.

Law360 Reports on Lawsuit Brought by Actress Against Biote

November 25, 2024 – Law360 reports that Brewer client and commercial actress Cindy Latch accused the Biote hormone treatment company and its affiliates of improperly using her image and likeness in promotional materials promoting its therapy.

 The article, “Hormone Therapy Co. Jilted Actress Over Image Use, Suit Says,” reports that Latch had an image use contract that automatically renewed from 2013 through 2021, but that Biote stopped paying her in 2021 as affiliates continue to her use her image to sell products. The complaint stated that, “Defendant blatantly misappropriated plaintiff's image and likeness—using her personal brand to sell products, cultivate customer relationships, and promote its corporate brand,"

William A. Brewer III, counsel for Latch, said in a statement her "currency is her personal brand."

"As is customary, she entered into an agreement to allow Biote to use her image and likeness," Brewer said. "Unfortunately, Biote continues to use plaintiff's personal brand while simultaneously denying her just compensation."

In addition to Brewer, Latch is represented by Brewer associates Joshua Harris and Nicholas Cacciarelli.

Read more here.

Biote Faces Claims for Misappropriating Name, Image or Likeness of Actress

Dallas, TX…November 21, 2024 – A lawsuit filed by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors client and actress Cindy Latch in Dallas County court alleges that Biote Medical, LLC and its affiliated practitioners used Latch’s name, image, or likeness (“NIL”) to promote the company without Latch’s consent.

The case, which provides insights into often misunderstood NIL arrangements, is the latest in a string of high-profile lawsuits involving Biote and its executives. The complaint alleges that Biote continues to leverage Latch’s NIL to promote the company’s hormone therapy products without compensating her and in violation of her legal rights.

Filed on November 15, 2024, in Dallas County, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, invasion of privacy by misappropriation, negligence, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among other violations of various state acts protecting Latch’s right to control her NIL. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to restrain Biote, its affiliates, and practitioners from using her likeness to further the company’s business. The lawsuit also seeks damages in excess of $10 million.

Latch, a highly regarded actress, has worked as an infomercial host, appearing in commercials for many major brands, including Chase Bank, AT&T, and American Airlines. According to the complaint, Latch notified Biote that it was improperly using her likeness even though its right to do so had expired.

“Our client’s currency is her personal brand,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer and counsel to Ms. Latch. “As is customary, she entered into an agreement to allow Biote to use her image and likeness. Unfortunately, Biote continues to use Plaintiff's personal brand while simultaneously denying her just compensation.”

The lawsuit says, “Plaintiff, like all other actresses, does not allow her image and likeness to be used for free.” Latch seeks to ensure that Biote abides by its agreements and concludes that, “Without strict enforcement of her contractual agreements and privacy rights, Plaintiff knows that her brand loses its value.”

The lawsuit alleges that Latch filmed the Biote appearance in 2013. She entered into an Image Usage Contract with Biote, laying out terms that include the cost of use. The contract was automatically renewed, and Latch was paid from 2013 through 2021. According to the complaint, this is when the trouble began.

Latch alleges that in 2021, Biote began refusing to honor the contract terms, and yet continued to use her image and likeness in its corporate marketing. In March 2021, Latch sent Biote CEO Terry Weber an invoice and links to Biote-affiliated websites – to confirm the continued to use her image.

According to the lawsuit, two months later, in May 2021, Biote Chief Digital Officer Kevin Key told Latch, untruthfully, that Biote was no longer using her likeness and that any continued use was not the company’s responsibility.

Key wrote to Latch that, “You’ve been erased from existence inside the Biote walls, your image or any likeness thereof has been permanently deleted.”

In September 2024, Latch again contacted Weber and asked Biote to cease use of her image. As of today, several certified Biote providers and practitioners are still using Latch’s NIL to promote the sale of Biote’s products. Plaintiff plays a visible and starring role in Biote corporate marketing:  the lawsuit includes links to footage of the commercial branding in question. 

The lawsuit states that, “While in breach, Biote evaded Ms. Latch’s requests to remove her image from Biote affiliated website. Further, Biote refused Ms. Latch payment for the use of her image in accordance with the renewal terms of the contract.”

Miami Herald Reports on Lawsuit by BAC Client Lourdes Castillo Against Dori Foster-Morales

November 1, 2024 – The Miami Herald reports today on a lawsuit by Brewer client Lourdes Castillo against former Florida Bar President Dori Foster-Morales and her law firm. As reported, Castillo alleges that the firm’s legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with her divorce proceedings cost her more than $1 million.

“The complaint says it all: when our client’s divorce proceedings became complex and contentious, she retained defendants to protect her interests,” said Brewer partner William A. Brewer III. “Unfortunately, defendants were regularly unprepared for key court and arbitration events, caused Ms. Castillo to unwittingly waive substantial rights, and abandoned her during the most important time of her life.”

Brewer told the Herald, “defendants do not appear to dispute any of the claims and allegations against them – choosing instead to peddle a false narrative about fee arrangements involving a former client. Ms. Castillo is shocked by the conduct and the notion that a law firm would so blatantly disregard its professional obligations.”