Michael A. Trevino — Questionable Entry Into the Kuhnel Family Probate Case

The Kuhnel grievance raises serious questions about how Michael Trevino became involved with 83-year-old Kenneth Roy Kuhnel (“Roy”), whether Roy understood what he was signing, and whether Trevino then used Roy’s purported authority to intensify an already fractured family probate dispute.

• 83-YEAR-OLD CLIENT / CAPACITY CONCERNS: Family members report that Roy had dementia or significant cognitive impairment and may not have understood complex legal and financial decisions. Yet Trevino represented him in a high-stakes will contest and later relied on a declaration stating Roy was “of sound mind and capable.” The probate court later stated Roy might need a guardian ad litem.
• “THE ATTORNEY WOULDN’T EVEN TAKE MY MONEY”: Roy reportedly went to Trevino’s office carrying a check because he believed he was hiring Trevino on an hourly basis. Trevino did not take the check. Roy allegedly walked out saying, “The attorney wouldn’t even take my money.” The family says Roy did not understand that he had instead signed a contingency-fee agreement containing arbitration. If corroborated, that raises a major informed-consent question.
• QUESTIONABLE CONTINGENCY-FEE SIGNUP: The grievance does not establish that Trevino “tricked” Roy as a proven fact, but it asks whether an elderly client with diminished capacity was induced into a sophisticated contingency arrangement he did not comprehend. The Bar is asked to obtain the agreement, intake notes, medical records, witnesses, and the retainer check.
• AGGRESSIVE ATTACK ON DEVON: Trevino later used Roy’s purported authority to oppose Devon Kuhnel’smotions, challenge Devon’s credibility, compel his deposition, and push the case toward trial. The litigation position could have reduced or defeated Devon’s rights under the 2017 will.
• UNREPRESENTED FAMILY MEMBER / POWER IMBALANCE: Devon was self-represented. The grievance specifically asks whether Trevino used superior legal knowledge and procedural leverage against an unrepresented beneficiary who was trying to challenge what he believed was happening to the estate.
• QUESTIONABLE ENTRY INTO THE CASE: Trevino was on the opposite side from Jorge Borunda and Adam Fomby, yet he had prior professional ties to Borunda. The family suspects Trevino may have received information or a referral through that network as the executor’s position weakened. The complaint carefully states that this theory is not yet proven and asks the Bar to obtain referral records, communications, fee-sharing records, and intake notes to determine exactly who brought Trevino into the case and why.

The central question is whether Trevino was protecting an elderly client’s informed wishes—or whether a vulnerable family member became the vehicle for contingency-fee litigation, increased family division, and additional professional fees.