Public Allegation Database

Attorney Misconduct Complaints Filed by Consumers

These are allegations and public-interest consumer complaints. They are not findings of professional misconduct unless a court, disciplinary authority, or public sanction says so. Attorneys are invited to submit a response, correction, or statement for publication.

October 2, 2026

Adam Fomby Lawyer Houston Bar Complaint

State: Texas

BR # 24083006

Submitted by: Devon Kuhnel

Adam Wilson Fomby — State Bar of Texas No. 24083006 — Borunda & Fomby PLLC. The State Bar currently lists Fomby as eligible to practice in Texas and identifies his firm as Borunda & Fomby PLLC.

Adam Fomby — Related Conduct in the Kuhnel Probate Grievance — The grievance asks the State Bar to investigate Adam Fomby’s role in the Estate of Billie Nelson Kuhnel, Cause No. 464101, particularly his partnership with Jorge Borunda, his entry during an escalating estate-administration crisis, and the family’s concern that supposedly independent lawyers on different sides of the case may actually have been part of a recurring professional network.

MISLEADING FIVE-STAR REPUTATION — “BEST OF THE BEST”: Executor Brian Heath Kuhnelreportedly relied heavily on the five-star reputations of Adam Fomby and Jorge Borunda and believed he was hiring the “best of the best.” The family later concluded that the representation did not match the exceptional reputation that influenced the hiring decision. The grievance asks the Bar to determine whether endorsements came from business partners, affiliated lawyers, co-counsel, referral sources, family members, or others whose relationships were not apparent to consumers.
ENTRY DURING A POWER SHIFT: Fomby and Borunda entered while Brian Kuhnel faced mounting criticism concerning estate accounting, funds, and administration. That crisis eventually culminated in Brian’s removal as administrator and the court’s insistence upon a successor who was “truly independent.”
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, potentially creating another route to fees or influence over the estate. The grievance expressly says this theory is not proven and asks for communications, referral records, fee-sharing records, intake notes, and conflict disclosures to determine what actually happened.
UNDISCLOSED LAWYER NETWORK / WORKING BOTH SIDES: Trevino represented Roy Kuhnel while Fomby and Borunda appeared nominally on the opposing side. Yet Trevino had previously been associated with Radack & Borunda, while Fomby is Borunda’s business partner. The grievance asks whether continuing referral, financial, co-counsel, or business relationships affected the lawyers’ independence and whether the clients were told about them.
FEE HARVESTING / ESTATE DEPLETION: When connected lawyers occupy different sides of a long-running probate fight, the danger is that fees can accumulate on both sides while the inheritance itself is diminished. The grievance specifically asks whether any lawyer had a financial incentive tied to prolonging the probate contest or obtaining control over estate assets.
WHAT DID FOMBY KNOW? The court ultimately removed Fomby’s client, Brian Kuhnel, as administrator. The grievance asks what Fomby knew about the accounting and estate-fund concerns, what advice he gave his client, what corrective steps he took, and why the administration problems were not resolved earlier. Importantly, the report does not establish that Fomby stole or helped steal estate assets; it calls for the underlying accounting, bank records, communications, and billing records to determine what occurred.
WHERE ARE THE BILLINGS? The Bar is asked to obtain Fomby’s engagement agreement, invoices, fee claims, payment records, referral arrangements, and communications. After years of litigation, one of the most basic unanswered questions is how much the estate or family paid while the dispute continued—and whether those fees were proportionate to the value actually protected for the heirs.
PUBLIC-PROTECTION ISSUE: The central concern is whether the Kuhnel family thought it was choosing independent lawyers based on extraordinary public reputations while material business, referral, professional, or financial relationships remained undisclosed. If the lawyers were functionally connected while appearing on opposing sides, the State Bar should determine whether that structure created divided loyalties, prolonged litigation, increased fees, or undermined the protection owed to the estate and its beneficiaries.