Title IX Defense Attorneys in Bryan, TX
A student accused of a Title IX offense in Bryan, Texas, can experience a wide range of emotions. Fear, anxiety, and confusion are just some of the emotions that can arise. Facing Title IX charges can be daunting for any student given the potential consequences. An experienced Bryan, Texas Title IX defense lawyer is a valuable advocate to help guide you through these challenges.
A student may feel overwhelmed and incredulous because the allegation is fundamentally at odds with how they perceive themselves. They may be ashamed and embarrassed that their behavior might harm another person or could have long-term detrimental effects on themselves and their future.
The best advice for any accused student is to fully understand their rights under Title IX and to take advantage of all available resources for support as soon as possible. This includes hiring a defense attorney.
Bryan Title IX Defense Guide
Why Choose the Law Office of Shane Phelps When Facing a Title IX Offense?
When confronting a Title IX offense, selecting the Law Office of Shane Phelps offers a strategic advantage rooted in several compelling factors. Our office in Bryan, Texas, is situated close to numerous colleges and universities, including Texas A&M University, Blinn College, and Franklin University. This proximity not only facilitates convenient access for clients but also fosters a deep understanding of the campus culture and administrative processes. This enables us to navigate these complexities with precision and efficacy.
Our law office understands the unique dynamics of Title IX cases within academic settings. Moreover, our team of dedicated Title IX defense lawyers is readily available and accessible, ensuring that clients receive personalized attention and prompt responses to their inquiries throughout every stage of their legal journey.
Our Law Office in Bryan, Texas
The Law Office of Shane Phelps, P.C., is located at 400 N. Washington Avenue, Bryan, TX 77803. We are in the heart of Bryan, at the corner of E. 23rd Street. Contact us for a free consultation.
Colleges and Universities in the Bryan, Texas Area
In the area around Bryan, Texas, there are several colleges and universities where a student might need a Title IX attorney, such as:
Each year, Title IX infractions are alleged against students, and they risk losing everything.
Understanding Title IX
Title IX (Title 9) is a federal civil rights law enacted in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments Act. Its primary purpose is to prohibit sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX applies to all educational institutions that receive federal funding, including public and private K-12 schools, colleges, universities, and vocational schools.
Under Title IX, educational institutions are required to provide equal opportunities for both sexes in all aspects of education, including admissions, athletics, academic programs, and employment. This means that schools must ensure that students and employees are not subjected to discrimination or harassment based on their sex or gender.
Title IX specifically prohibits several types of behavior, including:
- Sexual Harassment: This includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile environment or interferes with an individual’s educational or employment opportunities.
- Sexual Assault: Title IX requires educational institutions to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual assault, provide support services to victims, and conduct thorough investigations into allegations.
- Gender-Based Discrimination: Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression, ensuring that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals are protected from discrimination and harassment in educational settings.
Consequences of a Title IX Violation
By enforcing Title IX, educational institutions are tasked with fostering environments free from sex-based discrimination and ensuring equal access to educational opportunities for all students, regardless of gender. Failure to comply with Title IX regulations can result in the loss of federal funding and other legal consequences for institutions found in violation of the law.
If a student is found responsible for a Title IX violation, the potential consequences can be severe. Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, consequences may include suspension, expulsion, loss of scholarships or financial aid, and damage to their academic and professional reputation. These consequences can have long-lasting implications for the student’s educational and career prospects.
Accused students need to seek legal representation to defend their rights and mitigate the potential impact of Title IX proceedings. An experienced Bryan, Texas, Title IX defense attorney can help you navigate the investigation process and protect your rights.
Title IX Investigation Process
When a Title IX complaint is filed, educational institutions are required to initiate an investigation promptly. The investigative process involves gathering evidence, conducting interviews with relevant parties, and assessing the allegations based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Title IX coordinators, designated officials responsible for overseeing compliance with Title IX regulations, manage the investigation process. They are supposed to ensure that complaints are handled impartially, victims are provided with necessary support services, and respondents are afforded due process rights.
During investigations, the rights of the accused are paramount. These rights may include the right to be informed of the allegations against them, the right to review evidence, the right to present witnesses and evidence on their behalf, and the right to a fair and impartial investigation conducted by trained personnel. Additionally, respondents have the right to be free from retaliation for participating in the investigation process.
Don’t face a Title IX investigation alone. A skilled defense lawyer with experience handling these kinds of cases can represent you every step of the way.
Your Legal Rights in a Title IX Investigation
Students accused of Title IX violations are entitled to several legal rights to ensure a fair and equitable process. These rights include:
- Right to Due Process: You have the right to due process, which includes being notified of the allegations against you, having an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and being afforded a fair and impartial hearing or adjudication process. Due process also encompasses the right to confront witnesses and evidence presented against you and the right to appeal the outcome of the proceedings.
- Right to an Impartial Investigation: Accused students have the right to an investigation that is conducted impartially and without bias. This includes avoiding prejudgment of the accused student’s guilt or innocence.
- Right to Legal Representation: You have the right to be represented by an attorney or advocate throughout the Title IX process. Legal representation can be crucial in ensuring that your rights are protected. A lawyer will advocate on your behalf during interviews and hearings and advise you on your legal options.
Why Do You Need to Hire a Title IX Lawyer for Your Case?
Hiring a Bryan, Texas, Title IX defense lawyer can be a key asset when navigating the complexities of a Title IX case. An attorney experienced in Title IX law can guide you through the legal process and help ensure that you are well informed and prepared when dealing with school administrators or an opposition.
An attorney can help you navigate the complexities of the Title IX process, gather evidence in support of your defense, and challenge any procedural errors or violations of your rights. Additionally, a defense lawyer can help you prepare for interviews and hearings and ensure that you receive a fair and impartial investigation. An experienced Title IX lawyer should be familiar with deadlines and any necessary paperwork outlined by school policy to ensure that all procedures are followed correctly and on time.
Your lawyer will assess the strength of your case, develop an effective strategy for pursuing justice, and make sure your voice is properly heard throughout the proceedings. By having legal representation, you can better protect your interests and defend yourself against Title IX allegations in the Bryan, Texas, area.
At the Law Office of Shane Phelps, we pride ourselves on our comprehensive knowledge and experience in handling intricate Title IX laws. Our attorneys possess a thorough understanding of the evolving legal landscape surrounding Title IX regulations, allowing us to formulate strategic approaches tailored to the specifics of each case.
Whether advocating for the rights of an accused student or providing guidance to faculty members facing allegations, our team leverages its depth of experience to navigate the nuances of Title IX proceedings effectively.
By entrusting your Title IX defense to the Law Office of Shane Phelps, you can rest assured that you are partnering with a legal team equipped with the skills and dedication necessary to achieve a favorable outcome in your case. Call Shane Phelps Law today at 979-596-6843 or contact us online to schedule a consultation.
Shane Phelps
Lead Attorney
Case Results
How We’ve Helped Others In Your Shoes
Appellate Reversal and Dismissal
Murder x 2
State v. D.L.
2019
Sexual Assault
Dismissed
Wilson County v. T.M.
2024
Harassment
Dismissed
State v. D.C.
2022
Title IX
Accusation of Sexual Assault
Not responsible
State v. Z.M.
2023
Dismissed with Agreement to Immediately Expunge (on day of trial)
Attempted Theft $2,500-$30,000
Attempted Securing Execution of a Document by Deception
State v. G.M.
2023
Sexual Assault
Rejected after our investigation
Sexual Assault
Rejected after our investigation
State v. Z.M.
2023
Refused After Our Investigation
Prostitution (Class B)
Refused after our investigation 2014 (State v. I.I.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 3, less than 28 grams (Class A), Possession of Marijuana, less than two ounces (Class B) – Both reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudications, Expunction Pending 2015 (State v. D.O.)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 2, less than one gram (State Jail Felony) – Reduced to misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication 2014, early termination of probation 2015 (State v. P.B.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Criminal Mischief $500-$1500 (Class A)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication 2015 (State v. I.S.)
Dismissed
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 1, less than one gram (State Jail Felony) – Dismissed 2014 (State v. L.P.)
Refused Following Our Investigation
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 2, 4-400 Grams (2nd Degree); Three counts Misdemeanor controlled substance charges – Refused following our investigation; three misdemeanor charges to be dismissed. 2015 (State v. J.D.)
Dismissed
Possession of Marijuana
2-4 Ounces, Drug Free Zone (State Jail Felony) – Dismissed 2015 (State v. S.A.)
Negotiated pre-trial diversion on Class B
Possession of Marijuana
2-4 Ounces, Drug Free Zone (State Jail Felony) – Negotiated pre-trial diversion on Class B misdemeanor, seized vehicle and more than $15,000 recovered for client 2015 (State v. C.M.)
Dismissed
Possession of Child Pornography (Two Counts; 3rd Degree)
(Two Counts; 3 rd Degree) – Both counts Dismissed, no sex offender registration 2015 (State v. B.M.)
Dismissed
Failure to Identify (Class B)
Dismissed, Expunction Pending 2015 (State v. L.W.)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication
Theft $1,500-$20,000 (State Jail Felony)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication 2014 (State v. K.J.)
Refused
Possession of False ID
Possession of False ID (Class A)/Minor in Possession (Class C) – Class A Refused and MIP Dismissed 2015 (State v. B.B.)
Refused Following Our Investigation
Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor (Class A)
Refused following our investigation 2015 (State v. M.G.)
Refused Following Our Investigation
Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 1A, 4-400 Grams (1st Degree) – Refused following our investigation 2015 (State v. R.A.)
Refused Following Our Investigation
Tampering with Evidence (3rd Degree)
Refused following our investigation 2015
No Billed by Grand Jury
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/Bottle (2nd Degree)
No Billed by Grand Jury following our investigation 2014 (State v. G.H.)
Dismissed
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance: Dismissed
Dismissed
Assault by Contact (Class C)
Dismissed 2014 (State v. A.M.)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 2, less than one gram (State Jail Felony) – Reduced to misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication 2014 (State v. D.D.)
D.W.I Refused, POM Reduced
D.W.I (Class B); Possession of Marijuana
D.W.I (Class B); Possession of Marijuana under two ounces (Class B) – D.W.I refused, POM reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication 2014 (State v. P.D.G.)
Dismissed
Assault on Peace Officer (3rd Degree)
Harassment of a Public Servant (3rd Degree) – Dismissed 2014 (State v. A.Y.)
Dismissed
Theft $20,000-$100,000 (3rd Degree)
Dismissed 2015 (State v. C.S.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Possession of Marijuana
Possession of Marijuana under two ounces (Class B) – Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, expunction eligible 2015 (State v. S.P.)
All Charges Refused
Aggravated Kidnapping (1st Degree)
Aggravated Kidnapping (1st Degree), Sexual Assault of a Child (2nd Degree), Improper Visual Photography (State Jail Felony) – All charges refused after our investigation 2014 (State v. Z.H.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Tampering with Evidence (3rd Degree)
Refused after our investigation 2014 (State v. O.S.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 2, 4-400 grams (2nd Degree) – Refused after our investigation 2014 (State v. D.B.L.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Criminal Trespass to a Habitation (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication 2013 (State v. J.K.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Altered Handicapped Placard (Class A)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, expunged 2013 (State v. L.W.)
All Charges Dismissed
D.W.I. (Class B)
D.W.I. (Class B), Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon (four counts, Class A), Possession of Marijuana under two ounces (class B), Possession of a Dangerous Drug (Class A) – All charges dismissed except POM deferred adjudication with agreement for expunction; all weapons recovered for client. 2013 (State v. K.Y.)
Case Dismissed
Criminal Trespass – Property
Criminal Trespass – Property
Both Charges Dismissed
2 Counts of Aggravated Assault
2 Counts of Aggravated Assault
Motion to Adjudicate Dismissed
Motion to Adjudicate on Possession of Marijuana 4oz. – 5 lbs
Motion to Adjudicate on Possession of Marijuana 4oz. – 5 lbs
Evidence Suppressed
Murder/Aggravated, Robbery/Prohibited Weapon
State v. S.S.
2022
Refused After Our Investigation
Theft (State Jail Felony)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. S.K.)
Reduced to Class C Misdemeanor
Theft $50-$500 (Class B)
Theft $50-$500 (Class B) – Reduced to Class C Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication 2015 (State v. P.C.)
Reduced to Class C Misdemeanor
Criminal Trespass to Habitation (Class A)
Reduced to Class C Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication (Pending expunction) (State v. W.A.)
Reduced to Misdemeanor
Burglary of a Habitation (2nd Degree)
Reduced to Misdemeanor 2014 (State v. P.M.)
Dismissed
Motion to Adjudicate/Burglary of a Building (State Jail Felony)
Dismissed 2015 (State v. B.R.)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/knife (2nd Degree)
Reduced to Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication 2015 (State v. P.M.)
Dismissed
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/knife (2nd Degree)
Dismissed 2013 (State v. M.N.)
Dismissed
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child (1st Degree)
Dismissed 2014 (State v. C.L.)
Not Guilty by Jury
Indecency w/Child by Contact (2nd Degree)
Not Guilty by jury 2013 (State v. J.Z.)
Dismissed
Aggravated Assault/Deadly Weapon/Peace Officer
Dismissed 2015 (State v. A.H.)
Negotiated Deferred Prosecution on lesser charge
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child/Juvenile
Negotiated Deferred Prosecution on lesser charge, no sex offender registration 2015 (In the Matter of R.C.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Sexual Assault (2nd Degree)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. T.G.)
Dismissed at Trial
Aggravated Robbery (1st Degree)
Dismissed at trial 2015 (State v. J.M.)
Dismissed at Trial
Assault/Family Violence (Class A)
Dismissed at trial 2015 (State v. N.G.)
Acquitted
Indecency with a Child
Acquitted by jury
Acquitted
Indecency with a Child
Acquitted by jury
Quashed and Dismissed
Fleeing a Police Officer
Quashed and dismissed
Reduced
Driving While License Suspended
Reduced to Class C Misdemeanor deferred
Sentence Reversed
Possession of a Firearm by a Felon
15-year sentence reversed on Motion for New Trial
Refused After Our Investigation
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/firearm (2nd Degree)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. G.B.)
Dismissed
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon (2nd Degree)
Dismissed 2015 (State v. S.M.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Theft $50-$500 (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, Expunction Pending 2015 (State v. M.D.)
Negotiated Misdemeanor Pre-Trial Diversion
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Penalty Group 1, less than a gram, Drug Free Zone (3rd Degree); Possession of Marijuana under two ounces, Drug Free Zone (Class A) – Negotiated misdemeanor pre-trial diversion with agreement for expunction 2015 (State v. L.L.)
Dismissed
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Penalty Group 2, less than a gram (State Jail Felony)
Penalty Group 2, less than a gram (State Jail Felony) – Dismissed 2015 (State v. C.F.)
Reduced to non-aggravated Manslaughter charge
Murder (1st Degree)
Reduced to non-aggravated Manslaughter charge (2nd Degree), 8 years 2014 (State v. B.S.)
Dismissed
Burglary of a Vehicle (Class A)
Dismissed 2015 (State v. R.R.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Possession of Marijuana (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, Expunction Pending 2015 (State v. J.H.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon (Class A)
Refused after our investigation; arrest expunged 2015 (State v. G.S.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Possession of Marijuana (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, Expunction Pending 2015 (State v. B.C.)
Refused after our investigation
Assault/Family Violence (Class A)
Assault/Family Violence (Class A) – Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. V.K.)
Dismissed
Sexual Assault of a Child (2nd Degree)
Sexual Assault of a Child (2nd Degree) – Dismissed at trial 2015 (State v. J.J.)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication
Theft $50-$500 (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication, Expunction pending 2015 (State v. A.B.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Criminal Mischief $1,500 – $20,000 (State Jail Felony)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. J.W.)
Refused After Our Investigation
Assault/Family Violence (Class A)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. D.K.) Expunged 2015.
Reduced to Class C
Theft $50-$500 (Class B)
Reduced to Class C Deferred Adjudication 2015 (State v. R.R.) (Pending Expunction)
Reduced to Class A Misdemeanor Assault
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/Bottle (2nd Degree)
Reduced to Class A Misdemeanor Assault 2015 (State v. C.F.)
Refused after our investigation
Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon/handgun (2nd Degree)
Refused after our investigation 2015 (State v. W.M.)
Not Guilty Verdict
Not Guilty Verdict
Aggravated Robbery/Murder x2
2023
State v. M.R.
Found Not True
Motion to Adjudicate/Felony Assault Family Violence (3rd Degree)
Found Not True by Court after contested hearing 2013 (State v. R.R.)
Not Guilty Verdict
Not Guilty Verdict
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
2023
State v. T.H.
Dismissed
Aggravated Assault
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Brazos County
State v. J.M.
Dismissed
Evading Arrest with a Vehicle (3rd Degree)
State v. J.E.
Evading Arrest with a Vehicle (3rd Degree)
Dismissed
Milam County
What You Need to Know
Shane’s Top Ten Rules
Avoid Trouble at A&M, Blinn, & Beyond
979-596-6843
Email Us
Call Us
