CONSUMER ALERT: New Alleged Victims Come Forward in Ongoing Claims Against Texas Probate Lawyers
Multiple Texas Families Allege Similar Patterns of Fee Harvesting and Pressure Tactics Involving Nicholas Abaza, Jorge Borunda, and Michael Trevino as part of an ongoing multi-part investigative series
Houston, Texas, May 26, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- As scrutiny intensifies over forced arbitration and attorney accountability in Texas, two additional families have now come forward alleging that Houston probate lawyers Nicholas Abaza, Jorge Borunda, and Michael Trevino abused their positions of trust to extract excessive fees and control legal outcomes at the expense of vulnerable clients. Stop Legal Bullying Now, LLC is issuing this latest consumer alert as part of its ongoing multi-part investigative series shining a spotlight on legal abuse targeting grieving families in Texas inheritance battles.
The newly surfaced allegations mirror claims raised by Caroline and Richard Allison, who are currently pursuing post-judgment relief in their probate case through a Bill of Review filing. The Allisons have called for a complete overhaul of the arbitration process and have become central to a widening Houston probate investigation documented by investigative journalist Wayne Dolcefino.
Together, the families say their experiences point to a troubling pattern in which predatory lawyers, unfair contingency arrangements, and mandatory arbitration clauses combine to deprive clients of meaningful oversight and recourse — a practice advocates are calling fee harvesting.
The Damn Lawyers Series: New Victims Speak Out
The Dolcefino investigative series, Damn Lawyers, has documented the widening allegations across multiple episodes. Two new alleged victims are coming forward with their experiences working with this trio of lawyers. The newest episode, Damn Lawyers: Probate Plot, details their claims.
Gail Echols, a Texas woman seeking to recover her inheritance following the death of her father, says she hired Abaza, Borunda, and Trevino with the assumption that they would protect her interests in a probate dispute involving a family-owned tugboat business. According to Echols, the attorneys later told her they had negotiated a settlement worth approximately $1 million — but that after fees were taken, she received just over $300,000.
Echols says the lawyers charged a 40% contingency fee and took their entire fee from the cash portion of the settlement, leaving her with far less than she expected. She captured this in her own words in a Dolcefino investigation testimonial.
Echols later retained legal malpractice counsel who, according to her, sent a demand letter alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought the return of more than $100,000 in fees. Court records in Echols v. Abaza reflect the ongoing dispute. Echols says no money was returned.
Another alleged victim, Valeriya Ruzynska, says she hired Jorge Borunda and Nick Abaza after her ex-husband died leaving behind an estate valued at approximately $3.5 million, to enforce the divorce decree. Ruzynska says she felt pressured into settlement positions she did not agree with and was discouraged from questioning the legal strategy.
According to Ruzynska, that representation ended after she learned about other allegations involving the attorneys and identifying what she describes as a pattern of pressure, delay, and fee-driven decision-making.
"The probate plot we've exposed is just one of the reasons why we need some lawyer reform," said Wayne Dolcefino of Dolcefino Media. "Destroying someone's inheritance is wrong."
Rigged Arbitration: The Accountability Gap
The emergence of multiple Texas families with similar allegations has intensified concerns about how mandatory arbitration clauses and contingency fee arrangements can be used to shield attorney conduct from public scrutiny. As documented in Damn Lawyers: Rigged Arbitration — The Stench of Cronyism, alleged undisclosed conflicts between attorneys and arbitrators lie at the heart of the Allison family's claims.
Caroline Allison has become an outspoken advocate for arbitration reform following her family's experience.
“I know this trap personally. My family entered arbitration trusting that the process was neutral,” said Allison. “But we later discovered that the proceedings had been corrupted by undisclosed conflicts of interest involving our own attorneys and the arbitrator, Anne Ashby. When we tried to fight back for our justice, we realized that our options for recourse are nearly non-existent. The cycle just never ends.”
The formal reporting of Dallas-based arbitrator Anne Ashby to the Texas State Bar and new legal filings challenging the arbitration decision are detailed in a previous consumer alert on arbitration reform.
The Three Failures Enabling Arbitrator Misconduct
Advocates point to three main systemic gaps that protect bad actors and leave victims without recourse. Each of these contributes to arbitration being final, not fair.
- Arbitral Immunity: Private arbitrators enjoy near-absolute civil immunity — broader than a sitting judge — yet operate with no independent oversight and no accountability to any elected body.
- Self-Policing Panels: The American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) certify, assign, and discipline their own arbitrators. There is no independent oversight body with subpoena power or real decertification authority.
- Sealed Records: Every case is confidential. If an arbitrator has been ruling against one class of claimants for a decade, nobody knows — because every case is sealed.
Calls for Reform: Fairness Over Finality
Allison and other advocates are urging Texas lawmakers to prioritize fairness over finality ahead of the next legislative session. Specific reforms under consideration include:
- Full disclosure of all prior arbitrator relationships with parties and counsel, with automatic disqualification thresholds — just as judges are required to disclose conflicts.
- An independent oversight body with the authority to decertify arbitrators for misconduct.
- A public award registry so that patterns of bias and arbitrator misconduct become visible over time.
- A ban on mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in fiduciary arrangements, estate disputes, and elder financial matters.
- Restored meaningful judicial review for any award credibly alleged to have been procured by fraud.
- Enhanced informed consent standards requiring that clients be clearly advised when clauses strip citizens of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and when they are waiving appellate rights.
None of these reforms destroys arbitration. They make it what it was always supposed to be: a genuine alternative to litigation — not a replacement for accountability.
Media Availability
Caroline Allison, along with Wayne Dolcefino of Dolcefino Media, is available to speak with the media about the broader consumer implications, arbitration reform efforts, and why multiple Texas families say the current system of forced arbitration failed them.
For more information or to schedule an interview, contact Stop Legal Bullying Now, LLC.
Stop Legal Bullying Now, LLC stoplegalbullying@pm.me
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
