Texas Judge Reprimanded Over Handling of LVNV Funding Debt Collection Case
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has publicly reprimanded a Lubbock County justice of the peace. This has been done after finding procedural violations in a debt collection lawsuit and failures to cooperate with the commission’s investigation.
The commission issued its August 25, 2026, public reprimand against Francisco “Frank” Gutierrez, Justice of the Peace for Lubbock County Precinct 3, Place 1. The disciplinary action stems in part from his handling of a debt claim brought by LVNV Funding LLC against Shelby Ishmael.
Gutierrez was also ordered to complete four additional hours of judicial education with a mentor. The sanction does not suspend or remove him from office.
Debt Collection Case Leads to Disciplinary Review
The underlying dispute began when LVNV Funding filed a debt claim against Ishmael in Gutierrez’s court.
According to the commission’s findings, LVNV requested a final trial in December 2023, but Gutierrez did not schedule the case for trial. In April 2024, Ishmael’s attorney, Kyle Deese, filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit.
Gutierrez scheduled the arbitration motion for consideration by submission on May 29, 2024.
The commission found that Gutierrez instead converted the proceeding into a final trial without notifying either party. He entered judgment in favor of LVNV that day and denied Ishmael’s motion to compel arbitration the following day.
Commission Finds No Trial Notice or Hearing
The commission concluded that the final judgment was entered without notice to the parties that a trial would occur.
It also found that Gutierrez did not conduct a hearing or receive evidence before entering judgment for LVNV. According to the disciplinary findings, the absence of trial notice also prevented Ishmael’s attorney from having an opportunity to request a jury before trial.
Both parties later sought to have the judgment set aside.
In a July 8, 2024, agreed motion, attorneys for LVNV and Ishmael stated that no trial had been scheduled, the matter remained contested and neither party had announced that it was ready for trial. Gutierrez denied the request on July 19, citing the timing of the filing.
Ishmael’s attorney subsequently sought review from Lubbock County Court at Law No. 3.
Judge Benjamin Webb granted the request in August 2024, and Gutierrez ultimately vacated the disputed judgment on October 15, 2024.
Judge Also Failed to Respond to Investigation
Separate from the handling of the LVNV lawsuit, the commission found that Gutierrez repeatedly failed to cooperate with its disciplinary investigation.
Investigators sent an inquiry in March 2026 and followed up through emails and telephone calls. The commission later sent a tentative sanction through email and certified mail.
According to the disciplinary findings, Gutierrez said during telephone conversations that he did not recall receiving the initial inquiry and later indicated that he had not seen the tentative sanction. The commission resent the documents but said it received no response.
The commission ultimately characterized the violations as willful and persistent conduct inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties and conduct that brought public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.
Additional Judicial Education Ordered
Along with the public reprimand, the commission ordered Gutierrez to complete four additional hours of instruction with a mentor beyond his regular judicial education requirements. The Texas commission’s official sanctions index confirms both the public reprimand and order of additional education.
Three hours will address court procedures, proper notice, deadlines and improper one-sided communications. Another hour will focus on a judge’s responsibility to cooperate with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Gutierrez must complete the instruction within 60 days after receiving written notification that a mentor has been assigned.
The disciplinary action leaves Gutierrez in office while formally addressing both the procedural issues identified in the debt collection case and his response to the subsequent judicial-conduct investigation.
