John Michael Frick

John has been representing businesses and business people in the North Texas area for more than thirty years. He has tried numerous cases at various levels of the judicial system, including federal district court and state district court. He has presented appeals to the Supreme Court of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and ten of the fourteen intermediate courts of appeal in Texas. He has arbitrated cases before the American Arbitration Association and JAMS, Inc. In addition to his trial practice, John is a trained mediator and summary jury trial judge. As a result of displaying a high degree of skill, competence, and professionalism, he has earned an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell.

John received his law degree from SMU School of Law in 1988, where he served as an Associate Editor for the Southwestern Law Journal. While still in law school, he successfully presented an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas through the school’s civil clinic program, resulting in a published opinion reversing the lower court. He also completed his first jury trial through the school’s clinic program.

After graduating from law school, John served a judicial clerkship as briefing attorney for the Honorable Gordon H. Rowe, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. There, John had the pleasure of working with future Supreme Court of Texas Justices Nathan Hecht, Craig Enoch, and James Baker.

As a seasoned trial lawyer, John continues to maintain a high level of practice. He has represented clients in cases reported in the Wall Street Journal and Dallas Morning News, as well as ones featured on local news broadcasts and the national news program, Nightline. His civil trial practice includes representation in both state and federal court and encompasses a wide range of areas.

• Civil Litigation
• Contract Litigation
• Commercial Litigation
• Real Estate Litigation
• Professional Liability

• Credit Cards Accepted
  Visa & Mastercard Only
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Provides 90-minute initial consultation for a flat fee of $500. Does not typically work on a contingency fee. Usually requires a retainer.

Texas

State Bar of Texas

ID Number: 07455200

Since 1988

5th Circuit

Since 1992

Partner

Reid, Dennis & Frick, PC

2022 - Current

Member

Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC

2021 - 2021

Partner

Bennett, Weston LaJone & Turner, P.C.

2017 - 2021

Senior Attorney

Reid & Dennis, PC

2010 - 2017

Solo Practitioner

Law Offices of John M. Frick

2001 - 2010

Partner

Mills, Presby & Associates, L.L.P.

1995 - 2001

Associate

Godwin & Carlton, P.C.

1989 - 1995

Briefing Attorney

Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

1988 - 1989

SMU Dedman School of Law

Doctor of Jurisprudence/Juris Doctor (J.D.)

1988

Southern Methodist University

B.S. (1985) | Political Science

1981 - 1985

Honors: Summa Cum Laude

Southern Methodist University

B.A. (1985) | Psychology

1981 - 1985

Honors: Summa Cum Laude

AV-Preeminent

Martindale-Hubbell

2004

For over 100 years, the Bar Register has been a unique guide to the legal community's most eminent professionals. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field. The 2022 Bar Register contains over 14,000 member listings out of more than 1.3 million attorneys in the United States.

Texas State Bar  # 07455200

Member

1988 - Current

Board-Certified, Civil Trial Law

Texas Board of Legal Specialization

2010

Q. Should I pursue bill of review or set aside default judgment due to ex-spouse's misconduct in divorce?

February 26, 2025

A: You can pursue a bill of review if you can prove that your failure to appear or answer was the result of extrinsic fraud or official mistake without any negligence on your part and the time to pursue other remedies (like a motion to set aside the default judgment) elapsed before you first acquired actual knowledge that the default judgment had been granted.

If the time to pursue other remedies has not already expired, you should pursue another available remedy instead of a bill of review. If you have time to do so, the most generous and easiest remedy from the entry of a default judgment is a motion for new trial. Normally, the time to file a motion for new trial is 30 days from the date the default judgment was signed UNLESS you did not receive notice within 20 days of when it was signed.

There are some complications raised in your question such as mention of a settlement and you attending mediation which suggest that the judgment entered was not a default judgment but rather an agreed judgment possibly reached after mediation. Neither a bill of review nor a motion to set aside a default judgment are appropriate ways to attack an agreed judgment.

If you want to attack an agreed judgment that is based on a mediated settlement agreement as a result of your medical and mental conditions, you will need clear evidence from a medical expert that you were not mentally competent during mediation when you entered into the agreement or at any time prior to the entry of the judgment based on such an agreement but that you are mentally competent now. PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks, and certain types of cancer treatment can--but do not always--render a person mentally incompetent to make decisions and to understand the consequences of those decisions.

So you should schedule a consultation with an attorney experienced in family law and appeals in or near the county where the judgment was entered as soon as possible. Any remedy you may have does have a time limit. You should anticipate that such a consultation will cost you $500-1,000. ... Read More

Q. Can my ex schedule activities on my visitation days?

February 25, 2025

A: In the absence of a court order to the contrary, a parent may register their child for any extracurricular activity they choose. If the activity occurs during the other parent's period of possession, the other parent is under no legal obligation to bring the child to the activity. It's no different than if the couple were married and one spouse signed the child up for an activity and the other spouse wants to do something else with the child during that time.

If the parents cannot work it out, they may very well end up back in court, spending a lot of time and money on attorney fees. Some judges will order parenting classes for the two. Others may order a parenting coordinator or ad litem. Some will order that each parent can pick one extracurricular activity per child. Sometimes the parents will work it out in mediation. Etc.

My advice is always to work it out with the other parent. That is almost always what is in the best interest of the child and is the least expensive, least stressful solution for everyone. Notwithstanding that advice, I earn thousands of dollars fighting this type of fight. The last one of these type of fights I took on earned me $13,000+ and took a little over a year for neither parent to be particularly ecstatic with the outcome. So, please feel free to disregard my advice and hire me to fight for you. ... Read More

Q. Can a spouse that was cheated on demand that the mistress not have contact with their 2-year-old?

February 25, 2025

A: The D-I-L can make whatever demand she wants, but the son is under no legal obligation to comply unless and until there is a court order. The D-I-L can file for divorce if she wants and can ask the court for an order prohibiting the son from having contact with the paramour during his parenting time with the 2 year old. Some judges will grant such a request; others will not. If son says he loves the paramour, son may also want to file for divorce.