Jorge Borunda / Borunda, P.C. — Kuhnel Probate Grievance

The Kuhnel grievance asks the State Bar to investigate Jorge Borunda’s role in the Estate of Billie Nelson Kuhnel, Cause No. 464101, including his entry with Adam W. Fomby during an estate-administration crisis, the family’s reliance on a potentially misleading five-star reputation, the unexplained professional relationships surrounding Michael A. Trevino’s entry, and a separate licensure concern: Borunda’s State Bar profile was documented as showing him “Not Eligible to Practice in Texas” on September 20, 2026.

• MISLEADING FIVE-STAR REPUTATION — “BEST OF THE BEST”: Executor Brian Heath Kuhnelreportedly relied heavily on Borunda’s and Fomby’s five-star ratings and believed he had hired the “best of the best.” The family later concluded that the actual performance did not match the extraordinary reputation that influenced the hiring decision.
• ENTRY DURING A POWER SHIFT: Borunda and Fomby entered while Brian faced mounting criticism involving estate accounting, funds, and administration. That crisis ultimately resulted in Brian’s removal and the court’s insistence on a “truly independent” successor administrator.
• QUESTIONABLE TREVINO ENTRY / REFERRAL THEORY: The family suspects Michael Trevino may have received information or a referral through the Borunda-Fomby professional network as the executor’s position weakened. The grievance carefully identifies this as a theory requiring proof and asks for communications, referral records, fee-sharing records, intake notes, and conflict disclosures.
• UNDISCLOSED LAWYER NETWORK / WORKING BOTH SIDES: Trevino represented Roy Kuhnel while Borunda and Fomby appeared nominally on the other side, despite Trevino’s prior association with Radack & Borunda and Fomby’s business relationship with Borunda. The grievance asks whether these recurring relationships were material and whether the family was told enough to understand who was truly independent.
• INELIGIBLE-TO-PRACTICE CONCERN: The broader Borunda grievance records that on September 20, 2026, his official State Bar profile displayed “Not Eligible to Practice in Texas” and “Administrative Suspension.” That does not by itself prove he practiced unlawfully, but it makes the timing critical. The Bar should determine the exact suspension period and compare it with every court appearance, filing, client communication, legal advice, fee earned, and solicitation of legal work during that period. If Borunda was performing legal services while officially ineligible, that would be a major public-protection issue.
• FEE HARVESTING / ESTATE DEPLETION: When interconnected lawyers occupy opposing positions in a prolonged probate dispute, professional fees can accumulate on both sides while the estate itself shrinks. The grievance expressly asks whether any lawyer had a financial incentive tied to prolonging the contest or obtaining control over estate assets.
• WHAT DID BORUNDA KNOW? Brian Kuhnel was ultimately removed as administrator. The grievance raises the unanswered questions: What did Borunda know about the accounting and estate-fund problems? When did he know it? What advice did he give? What did he do to protect the heirs? And why were those problems not stopped sooner? The report does not establish theft by Borunda or the other lawyers; it calls for the bank records, accountings, communications, and billing records needed to determine what happened.
• WHERE ARE THE BILLINGS? After years of litigation, the State Bar should obtain every engagement agreement, invoice, payment ledger, referral agreement, fee-sharing record, and communication involving Borunda, Fomby, and Trevino. The public-protection question is whether the lawyers were protecting the estate—or whether the litigation structure itself became a vehicle for fee harvesting, estate depletion, divided loyalty, and prolonged conflict.