- Email: Norman.Giles@lewisbrisbois.com
- Phone: 832.460.4637
- Fax: 713.759.6830
Norman Ray Giles is a partner in the Houston office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the School Districts & Municipalities Practice. His law practice primarily entails civil litigation but he also regularly counsels public officials and trains law enforcement personnel. Norman's background as a police officer, homicide investigator, and police administrator provides him with valuable experience and a unique perspective in addressing litigation and public employee civil service issues. He has represented more than 100 different governmental entities, including municipalities, counties, school districts, mental health districts, housing districts, river authorities, and water control districts, as well as hundreds of individual public officials. The broad scope of issues such representation entails has led Norman to involvement in many diverse legal issues that are not limited only to governmental clients. Norman regularly represents clients in efforts to avoid litigation, in preparation for litigation, during litigation and trial, and through appeals when necessary.
After completing law school, Norman retired from active duty as a police officer and joined the law firm of Magenheim, Bateman, and Helfand where he practiced law for three years. Thereafter, Norman practiced for twelve years at Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry before joining Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith LLP in June of 2016.
- November 29, 2016 Bill Helfand, Norman Giles Win Supreme Court Reversal
Before entering the practice of law, Norman served the City of Galveston Police Department as a Police Officer, Investigator, Sergeant, and Lieutenant. During his police career, he investigated hundreds of criminal cases. While his tenure, training and experience qualifies him for certification as a Texas Master Peace Officer, Norman retired from active police duty in 2000.
Certified by the State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement as a Master Peace Officer, Peace Officer Instructor, and Peace Officer Firearms Instructor.
- Hunter v. Cole, 137 S. Ct. 497 (2016)
- Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne, 847 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2017)
- Paske v. Fitzgerald, 499 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App. –Houston [1st Dist.] 2016.
- Rogge v. City of Richmond, 506 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.0 2016)
- Paske v. Fitzgerald, 785 F.3d 977 (5th Cir. 2015)
- Hobart v. Estrada, 582 Fed.Appx. 348 (5th Cir. 2014)
- Martinez v. Maverick County, 507 Fed.Appx. 446 (5th Cir. 2013)
- Backe v. Le Blanc, 691 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2012)
- City of Pasadena v. Smith, 292 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. 2009)
- Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2009)
- City of Santa Fe v. Boudreaux, 256 S.W.3d 819 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2008)
- Meadours v. Ermel, 483 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2007)
- Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005)
- Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004)
- Schauer v. Morgan, 175 S.W.3d 397 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005)
- City of Sugar Land v. Ballard, 174 S.W.3d 259 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005)
- Morgan v. City of Alvin, 175 S.W.3d 408 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004)
- City of Kemah v. Vela, 149 S.W.3d 199 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2004)
- City of Dayton v. Gates, 126 S.W.3d 288 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2004)
- Texana Community MHMR v. Silvis, 62 S.W.3d 317 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2001)
- Norman and his partners handled a police civil service case wherein the ruling the Texas Supreme Court made substantially limits the authority of arbitrators to substitute their individual judgment for that of a municipal employer when evaluating disciplinary decisions under police civil service laws. In that case, two police officers were involved in a public dispute stemming from a personal disagreement. The police chief initiated disciplinary action against the officers under Texas police civil service laws. The officers appealed the police chief’s decision regarding discipline and a third party hearing examiner reversed the discipline the chief proposed. The hearing examiner based his decision on an incorrect interpretation of a police civil service statute that did not apply to the case. The municipal employer filed suit challenging the hearing examiner’s decision and his basis for reaching it. A Texas district court and Texas court of appeals initially upheld the hearing examiner’s decision, but the Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed all of those preliminary decisions and, in doing so, further decided broader legal questions applicable to the general authority of hearing examiners. All municipalities in Texas are now entitled to reversal of a hearing examiner’s decision if he exceeds his jurisdiction, when his acts are not authorized by the civil service act or are contrary to it, or when his acts invade the municipality’s executive policy-setting authority. This decision substantially impacts application of Texas municipal civil service law.
- Norman also handled a different, but somewhat similar police employment case that did not involve civil service law, in which a Texas court of appeals found a provision in a collective bargaining agreement between a city and a local police association void because the provision was based on an unconstitutional delegation of the city’s exclusive power to set and enforce police disciplinary policy. The collective bargaining agreement had contained a provision which provided for a citizen review committee to make the final decision regarding police officer discipline, but the court of appeals struck down that portion of the agreement which limited the city’s authority to discipline police officers under Texas law.
- In another employment case that did not involve civil service but did implicate application of Texas laws pertaining to peace officer licensing and discipline, a police officer admitted he did not obey a lawful order given directly to him by his supervisor, the chief of police. The police chief charged the officer with insubordination and discharged him from employment by the police department. The police officer alleged the chief’s decision was the result of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation for the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The officer first made this argument to an Administrative Law Tribunal where the Administrative Law Judge found the chief’s disciplinary decision was supportable due to the officer’s proven insubordination. The officer, nonetheless, filed suit against the chief of police and city that had employed the officer. The presiding federal district Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, likewise, found the officer’s misconduct warranted the discipline the chief imposed and no evidence of discrimination. The officer, thereafter, urged his same arguments to the United States Supreme Court but the Supreme Court did not grant the officers’ petition for a writ of certiorari.
- In addition to handling public employment matters, Norman also frequently represents governmental entities and law enforcement personnel in civil litigation stemming from police arrests and use of force. In one such case, a police officer shot and fatally wounded an individual after he physically attacked the officer when the officer responded to investigate a reported mental health crisis that involved a risk of danger. The decedent’s family sued the chief of police who supervised the officer alleging the chief failed to properly train the officer concerning use of deadly force. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found no evidence the chief was deliberately indifferent to the decedent’s constitutionally protected rights.
- During a different investigation of a reported mental health crisis, several police officers encountered an individual who was delusional and armed with a very large screw driver. The officers attempted to persuade the individual to put the screwdriver down but the irrational individual perceived the officers as satanical figures. After the individual refused to comply with many verbal commands to drop the screwdriver, officers utilized a device that deployed bean bags in an effort to temporarily incapacitate the individual long enough to safely take him into custody for the purpose of providing him with emergency mental health treatment and protecting the public from harm. However, the bean bags were ineffective and the individual raised his knife and charged toward an officer at the scene. When the individual neared the officer, three officers shot the individual to preserve the threatened officer’s life. The decedent’s family, thereafter, effectively lobbied the Texas Legislature to create laws requiring all police officers to obtain additional training regarding crisis intervention techniques, and the family also filed suit against the officers alleging they used excessive force. After trial, a jury found the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances and the jury rendered a verdict in the officers’ favor.
- When a deputy sheriff attempted to stop an individual who was transporting several bales of marijuana through a border town in south Texas, the suspect led deputies on a high speed car chase during which the fleeing suspect nearly struck one deputy with the fleeing vehicle. When the suspect’s vehicle did strike a different deputy later in the chase, a fellow-deputy shot the suspect causing serious but not fatal injuries. The suspect filed suit against the deputies alleging they used excessive force. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the deputies’ actions were reasonable and entered judgment in their favor prior to trial.
- An individual used a firearm to beat an innocent person so police investigators obtained a warrant authorizing the arrest of the assailant and a search of the mobile home in which he lived. When a SWAT officer encountered the suspect in a dark room inside the mobile home, the suspect refused to submit to police commands to surrender and, instead, the suspect reached into a boot. The officer interpreted the suspect’s actions as reaching for a weapon which posed a risk of serious harm to the officer so he shot the suspect to stop the imminent threat the officer perceived. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the officer’s use of force in self-defense reasonable under the circumstances.
- Lawsuits stemming from law enforcement operations often involve claims against a governmental entity, police supervisors, and the police officers who arrest a suspect. In such circumstances, not only is it essential to resolve the litigation but it is also important to do so before subjecting public servants to unnecessary burdens of litigation. A case in point that Norman handled stemmed from a melee in a bar during which several officers arrested several suspects. The arrestees not only sued the police officers who responded to the bar, they also sued the city’s chief of police and city manager. The chief and city manager moved the presiding district court to immediately dismiss the claims asserted against these administrative city officials who had no personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct of the officers who made the arrests. The district judge issued a preliminary order stating he planned to defer making a ruling on the motions to dismiss the chief and city manager filed until after litigation discovery was completed. The chief and city manager sought interlocutory relief and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the district court’s order authorizing premature discovery in error. The Circuit Court affirmed the legal standard that requires a district court to rule on a public official’s request for dismissal based on individual immunity at the earliest possible stage in the litigation.
- These case summaries provide a sample of the kinds of matters Norman regularly handles. Over his career, he has represented more than 100 different governmental entities, many of them multiple times, and hundreds of individual public officials including law enforcement officers, law enforcement supervisors and administrators, city managers, judges, other governmental employees, as well as private individuals.
Norman is also an avid fan of the University of Texas at Austin Rowing team, where one of his daughters now serves as a graduate assistant coach after her own successful Longhorn rowing career, and also is an avid fan of the Texas A&M International University softball team where another of his daughters competes in her sport.
- Legislative Privilege for Policymakers, presented during the Suing & Defending Governmental Entities program sponsored by the State Bar of Texas in 2007
- Claim Avoidance Strategies, presented during the Texas Police Law Training Seminar in Houston, Texas in 2007
- Governmental Entity Liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 presented during the Suing & Defending Governmental Entities program sponsored by the State Bar of Texas in 2006
Supreme Court of the United States of America
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
- American Bar Association
- Bar Association of The Fifth Federal Circuit
- State Bar of Texas
- Houston Bar Association
Awards & Honors
- Selected in 2007 as a “Rising Star” in Texas by Law & Politics Media and the publishers of Texas Monthly Magazine
- Certificate of Commendation from the United States Department of Justice
- Special Commendation from the United States Attorney of the Southern District of Texas
- Special Award from the Women's Resource & Crisis Center of Galveston County
- Police Officer of the year 1994-1995 from the Galveston Rotary Club
- Galveston Police Department Combat Cross
- Galveston Police Department Injured in Combat
- Galveston Police Department Education Award
South Texas College of Law
Juris Doctor, 2000
University of Houston
Bachelor of Science, 1990