GARY HILL v. ERIC FEIN ASSOCIATES (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Bridges

Gary L. Hill appeals the trial court's judgment awarding $40,725.80 in damages, plus $6002.88 in attorney's fees, to Eric D. Fein, P.C. & Associates.   This Court, by letter dated June 4, 2010, notified Hill that his pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and directed him to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1.   On June 14, 2010, appellant filed an amended brief that similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.

We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs;  however, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure.  Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex.1978).   To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel.   Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).   The law is well established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party's brief shall contain, among other things, a concise, nonargumentative statement of the facts of the case, supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument for the contention made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.  Tex.R.App. P. 38.1;  McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied).   Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error.   See Sullivan v. Bickel & Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477, 486 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied);  see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex.1994) (appellate court has discretion to waive point of error due to inadequate briefing).   When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal.  Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.);  Howell v. T S Commc'ns, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).

In his amended brief, Hill appears to argue there was no contract between him and Fein for Fein's legal services, and Fein's legal representation was unprofessional.   However, Hill has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make his appellate complaints viable.   See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518.   By failing to adequately brief his complaints, Hill has waived our review of his complaints.   See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 (concluding appellant had waived points not supported by argument and authority).   Accordingly, we need not further address Hill's complaints.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

100276F.P05

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE