Michael Anthony Trevino — State Bar of Texas No. 24070762 — is the subject of a grievance alleging that a Houston probate lawyer entered an already expensive inheritance dispute through an existing professional network, encouraged continued high-conflict litigation, and ultimately benefited from a contingency-fee structure, settlement, arbitration, and judgment process that the complaint characterizes as potential fee harvesting, fee maximization, self-dealing, legal abuse, and legal bullying.

• DECEPTION / CONTRADICTORY CASE ASSESSMENT: According to the grievance, Trevino initially told the client the medical evidence was strong enough to justify trial, but later described those same records in arbitration as mixed or affirmatively unfavorable.
• FEE HARVESTING: The complaint alleges Trevino entered after substantial discovery costs had already been paid, then obtained an economic interest through the contingency arrangement and later participated in fee claims exceeding seven figures.
• FEE MAXIMIZATION / SELF-DEALING: The grievance asks whether Trevino’s financial interest in the gross recovery affected advice about continuing, settling, or preserving existing trust assets.
• HIGH-CONFLICT LITIGATION: Trevino’s broader case history includes prolonged probate disputes, nonsuits, withdrawals, settlements, and cases producing little or no recovery, raising questions about whether clients received candid ongoing cost-benefit assessments.
• SETTLEMENT PRESSURE: The complaint alleges Trevino became a central figure in the late-night Allison mediation and pressured the family to accept a settlement they quickly sought to undo.
• FAMILY DESTRUCTION: The grievance alleges years of probate litigation caused enormous financial losses, depleted inheritance value, and severe family damage rather than protecting the family legacy.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION: Trevino’s “Will Contest Guy” marketing emphasizes wins and “millions recovered,” while the complaint alleges professional-network five-star reviews and difficulty keeping negative former-client reviews visible.
• ARBITRATION AS A SHIELD FOR MISCONDUCT: When the clients later alleged malpractice, deception, and fiduciary breaches, the dispute moved into private arbitration under a later agreement, limiting public scrutiny of the lawyers’ conduct.