Crane County Fraternity Hazing Attorneys | $24M+ in PIKE Settlements Exposed | Attorney911 — The Attorneys Who Shut Down Pi Kappa Phi | Federal Court | Former Insurance Defense | 1-888-ATTY-911

We are so glad you are here. If you are experiencing a legal emergency, please call us now at 1-888-ATTY-911 or (713) 443-4781.

Navigating the Crisis: A Crane County Family’s Guide to Hazing Litigation in Texas

The arid expanse of Crane County, Texas, feels a world away from the bustling campuses of Houston, Austin, College Station, or Dallas. Yet, for families in our community, the concerns of college life—including the insidious threat of hazing—are intensely local. Perhaps your child just started at the University of Houston, brimming with the promise of a new chapter. Or maybe they are upholding a family tradition at Texas A&M, surrounded by the spirit of the Aggie Corps. Then, a call comes. A late-night incident. An unexplained injury. A sudden, unsettling change in behavior. This is the moment when the abstract threat of hazing becomes terrifyingly real, transforming parental pride into consuming fear.

Imagine your child, eager to fit in, being pressured to drink far beyond their limits during an “initiation” at an off-campus fraternity house near the University of Texas at Austin. Or perhaps they’re enduring degrading acts, sleep deprivation, or physical abuse in a secluded “retreat” outside College Station, desperate to earn the acceptance of a group. Others film on their phones, laughing, while someone gets hurt—falls, vomits, collapses—but no one calls for help, terrified of “getting the chapter shut down” or “getting in trouble.” Your child feels trapped, caught between loyalty to an organization and their own very real safety.

This scenario, though fictional, powerfully reflects genuine fears and chilling realities. This is not merely a tale of distant campuses; it is a potential tragedy that can impact any family in Crane County whose child has ventured off to college in Texas. This guide is for you and your family.

This is a comprehensive guide to hazing and the law in Texas, written for families in Crane County and across Texas who need to understand:

• What hazing looks like in 2025, stripping away harmful stereotypes and revealing its modern, often hidden forms.
• How Texas and federal law treat hazing, outlining your legal rights and avenues for justice.
• What we can learn from major national cases and how their precedents directly apply to Texas families and universities.
• What has been happening at the University of Houston (UH), Texas A&M University (A&M), the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University, as well as other Texas schools.
• What legal options victims and families in Crane County and throughout Texas may have for accountability and compensation.

Even if your child attends a university far from Crane County, Texas hazing law and experienced Texas counsel can provide the support and representation you need. Our firm, Manginello Law Firm / Attorney911, serves families throughout Texas, bringing decades of experience and legal expertise to every case.

This article provides general information and is not specific legal advice. Every hazing incident is unique, and we offer confidential, no-obligation consultations to evaluate your specific situation.

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR HAZING EMERGENCIES:

• If your child is in danger RIGHT NOW:

  • Call 911 for medical emergencies.
  • Then call Attorney911: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911).
  • We provide immediate help – that’s why we’re the Legal Emergency Lawyers™.

• In the first 48 hours:

  • Get medical attention immediately, even if the student insists they are “fine.”
  • Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
    • Screenshot group chats, texts, DMs immediately.
    • Photograph injuries from multiple angles.
    • Save physical items (clothing, receipts, objects).
  • Write down everything while memory is fresh (who, what, when, where).
  • Do NOT:
    • Confront the fraternity/sorority.
    • Sign anything from the university or insurance company.
    • Post details on public social media.
    • Let your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence.

• Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours:

  • Evidence disappears fast (deleted group chats, destroyed paddles, coached witnesses).
  • Universities move quickly to control the narrative.
  • We can help preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights.
  • Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate consultation.

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

For Crane County families and those across Texas, understanding hazing means looking beyond the caricatures of Hollywood movies. Hazing today is often more subtle, insidious, and deeply psychological than ever before, though the physical and alcohol-related abuses persist with tragic regularity. It’s a complex, evolving phenomenon driven by group dynamics, perceived tradition, and a misguided sense of “earning” acceptance.

Hazing can be defined as any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured act tied to joining, maintaining membership, or gaining status in a group, where the behavior endangers physical or mental health, humiliates, or exploits. This definition broadens the scope considerably beyond simple “pranks,” encompassing anything that makes a student feel compelled to participate against their better judgment or comfort. We want to be very clear that “I agreed to it” does not automatically make an activity safe or legal, especially when peer pressure and power imbalances are at play. The law, and our firm’s experience, recognize that true consent is often impossible in these coercive environments.

Main Categories of Hazing

Hazing manifests in various forms, many of which are specifically designed to fly under the radar of university policies and legal definitions.

• Alcohol and Substance Hazing: This remains one of the deadliest forms of hazing. It includes forced or coerced drinking of excessive amounts of alcohol, often through “chugging challenges,” “lineups,” or drinking games where pledges are obligated to consume dangerous quantities. It also extends to being pressured to consume unknown or mixed substances, which can have unpredictable and life-threatening consequences. Leonel Bermudez at the University of Houston, for example, allegedly endured forced consumption until vomiting, highlighting the severe risks involved. This type of hazing tragically leads to numerous hospitalizations and deaths on campuses nationwide and presents a clear and foreseeable danger that organizations and universities are increasingly held accountable for.

• Physical Hazing: Beyond the stereotypical paddling, physical hazing today involves extreme calisthenics, prolonged “workouts,” or “smokings” designed to push pledges far beyond their physical limits, masquerading as “conditioning.” Sleep deprivation, often spanning multiple days, and deliberate food or water deprivation are also common and extremely dangerous tactics. Exposure to extreme cold or heat, or being abandoned in dangerous environments, can also fall under this category. The alleged Yellowstone Boulevard Park workouts that Leonel Bermudez was forced to endure, including hundreds of push-ups and squats, are a stark example of physical hazing that led to serious medical consequences.

• Sexualized and Humiliating Hazing: This particularly egregious form of hazing involves forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (sometimes referred to by demeaning terms like “roasted pig” or “elephant walk” positions), and other degrading activities. It often includes acts with racial, homophobic, or sexist overtones, the use of slurs, or forcing members to role-play offensive stereotypes. These acts inflict deep psychological wounds and can constitute sexual harassment or even assault.

• Psychological Hazing: This category often leaves no physical scars but inflicts profound and lasting emotional damage. It encompasses verbal abuse, constant threats, social isolation from non-group members, and manipulative tactics designed to break down an individual’s self-esteem. Public shaming, whether online or in meetings, and forced confessions or disclosures are also powerful tools of psychological manipulation used in hazing. The demand for pledges to carry humiliating items in a “fanny pack” as alleged in the Bermudez case exemplifies this psychological torment.

• Digital/Online Hazing: Modern hazing has adapted to the digital age, employing social media and messaging apps as tools of control and humiliation. This includes group chat dares, forced participation in “challenges,” public humiliation via Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Discord channels. Pledges can be pressured to create or share compromising images or videos, or subjected to constant demands and monitoring that lead to extreme sleep deprivation and anxiety. Many of these tactics operate in the shadows, making them harder for outsiders to detect but no less damaging.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

It’s a misconception that hazing is confined solely to certain types of fraternities. While Greek-letter organizations are frequently implicated, hazing is a pervasive issue across a wide spectrum of student groups:

• Fraternities and Sororities: This includes social fraternities (Interfraternity Council – IFC), sororities (Panhellenic), historically Black Greek-letter organizations (National Pan-Hellenic Council – NPHC), and multicultural Greek-letter organizations. Pledging and initiation processes, if not properly supervised and regulated, can become fertile ground for hazing.

• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / Military-Style Groups: Organizations with hierarchical structures and an emphasis on discipline can unfortunately become environments where hazing is mistaken for character building or tradition. The Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, for example, has faced hazing allegations, highlighting the need for vigilance even in highly structured environments.

• Spirit Squads, Tradition Clubs, and Student Organizations: Groups like cheerleading squads, dance teams, campus spirit organizations (e.g., the Texas Cowboys at UT Austin), and even some academic or service clubs may engage in hazing under the guise of “team building” or “tradition.” The “Absolute Texxas” spirit group at UT Austin was disciplined for hazing, demonstrating its reach beyond Greek life.

• Athletic Teams: From football and basketball to baseball, swimming, and even intermural sports, hazing can occur within team environments, often involving physical abuse, forced alcohol consumption, or humiliating rituals designed to “toughen up” new players or build false camaraderie. The Northwestern University athletic hazing scandal vividly illustrates this point.

• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: Even seemingly innocuous groups like marching bands, theater troupes, and a cappella choirs have been found to engage in hazing practices. The tragic death of Robert Champion at Florida A&M’s marching band brought national attention to hazing within these contexts.

For families in Crane County, it is critical to understand that social status, the allure of tradition, and an ingrained culture of secrecy allow these harmful practices to persist, even when participants know better. These groups often rationalize hazing as a rite of passage, a way to build unity, or simply “what everyone before us had to do.” However, the legal and human cost quickly dispels these justifications.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

For families in Crane County, understanding the legal landscape of hazing in Texas is crucial. The law provides clear definitions, penalties, and avenues for accountability, offering a framework for justice when prevention fails.

Texas Hazing Law Basics

Texas has specific, robust anti-hazing provisions primarily housed within the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F (Hazing). These laws broadly define and prohibit hazing, empowering both criminal prosecution and civil claims.

• Definition of Hazing: Under Texas law, hazing is defined as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, committed by a person acting alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

  • Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, and
  • Occurs for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

  This definition is intentionally broad. It covers acts both on or off campus—the location does not absolve liability. It encompasses harm to both mental and physical health, recognizing the profound psychological impact of hazing. Crucially, “reckless” intent is sufficient, meaning individuals can be held liable even if they didn’t maliciously intend harm but acted with a disregard for known risks.

• Criminal Penalties: Hazing is a criminal offense in Texas. The severity of the charges depends on the level of harm inflicted:

  • Class B Misdemeanor: This is the default charge for hazing that does not result in serious injury, carrying penalties of up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
  • Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes bodily injury requiring medical attention, the charge can be elevated to a Class A Misdemeanor.
  • State Jail Felony: Critically, if hazing causes serious bodily injury or death, it becomes a state jail felony, carrying penalties of up to two years in a state jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000.
  • Failure to Report: It is also a misdemeanor offense for an officer or member of an organization who knows of hazing and fails to report it. Retaliating against someone who reports hazing is similarly prohibited.

• Organizational Liability: The Texas Education Code extends criminal liability beyond individuals to the organizations themselves. Student organizations can be criminally prosecuted if they authorized or encouraged the hazing, or if an officer or member acting in an official capacity knew about the hazing and failed to report it. Penalties for organizations can include fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and universities also have the power to revoke an organization’s recognition and ban them from campus. This provision underscores that “it was just a few bad apples” is often an insufficient defense for the group as a whole.

• Immunity for Good-Faith Reporting: Texas law provides protections for those who come forward. A person who in good faith reports a hazing incident to university authorities or law enforcement is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise arise from the report. This is designed to encourage witnesses and victims to speak up without fear of prosecution. Furthermore, Texas law, and many university policies, often extend amnesty to individuals who call 911 in an emergency, even if substance use was involved.

• Consent is Not a Defense: One of the most critical aspects of Texas hazing law is enshrined in Texas Education Code § 37.155, which explicitly states that it is not a defense to prosecution for hazing that the person being hazed consented to the hazing activity. This directly addresses the common defense that victims “voluntarily” participated, recognizing that true consent is absent in coercive hazing environments.

• Reporting by Educational Institutions: Texas institutions of higher education are mandated to provide hazing prevention education, publish their anti-hazing policies, and, importantly, publish annual reports of hazing violations and disciplinary actions taken. This transparency is invaluable for families in Crane County and beyond, allowing them to research an organization’s history before their child pledges.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

When hazing occurs, families often wonder about the legal avenues available. It’s important to understand the distinction between criminal and civil cases:

• Criminal Cases: These are initiated by the state (prosecutors) to punish illegal acts. In hazing incidents, criminal charges can range from misdemeanor hazing to state jail felonies, or even manslaughter or negligent homicide in fatal cases. Other associated crimes like assault, furnishing alcohol to minors, or property damage can also be prosecuted. The goal is to impose penalties like incarceration, fines, or probation.

• Civil Cases: These are brought by the victims or their surviving families to seek monetary compensation and accountability. Unlike criminal cases, which focus on punishment, civil cases aim to compensate for the victim’s losses and suffering. Common legal theories in hazing civil lawsuits include:

  • Negligence and Gross Negligence: Alleging that individuals or institutions failed to exercise reasonable care, or acted with reckless disregard, leading to the harm.
  • Wrongful Death: Brought by eligible family members when hazing results in a fatality, seeking compensation for their losses.
  • Assault and Battery: For physical harms inflicted during hazing.
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: For severe psychological harm.
  • Premises Liability: If the hazing occurred in a location that was unsafe or negligently managed.
  • Fraud or Misrepresentation: If organizations hid their hazing practices or made false promises about a safe environment.

It is crucial to note that criminal cases and civil cases can proceed independently. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit, and often, civil litigation can reveal evidence that aids a criminal prosecution, and vice-versa.

Federal Overlay: Stop Campus Hazing Act, Title IX, Clery

Beyond state law, federal regulations are increasingly shaping the landscape of hazing accountability:

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation, the full impact of which will become fully tangible by 2026, mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must:

  • Report all hazing incidents more transparently through annual safety reports.
  • Strengthen hazing education and prevention programs across campus.
  • Maintain public hazing data for accessible review by students and families.
  • This Act aims to create a national standard for hazing accountability and prevention, offering families in Crane County and elsewhere greater access to critical information regarding campus safety.

• Title IX: This federal law prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based humiliation, or discriminatory practices, it can trigger Title IX obligations. Universities then have a legal duty to investigate and respond robustly, or face potential loss of federal funding and civil liability.

• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While hazing itself isn’t explicitly a Clery crime, incidents involving assault, sexual assault, harassment, or alcohol/drug violations that occur during hazing must be reported and contribute to an institution’s overall safety statistics.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

When a hazing incident occurs, identifying all potential responsible parties is critical for accountability:

• Individual Students: The students who actively planned, encouraged, supplied substances, or participated in the hazing acts can be held personally liable. This includes those who physically assaulted the victim or those in leadership roles who directed the hazing. Personal assets, future earnings, and even homeowner’s insurance policies of parents can be at stake.

• Local Chapter / Organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, or student club involved can be named as a defendant. These entities often have local bank accounts, assets, and liability insurance.

• National Fraternity/Sorority: Most local chapters are part of larger national organizations. These national bodies often have significant assets, liability insurance policies, and set the rules and policies for their chapters. They can be held liable if:

  • They had knowledge of the hazing at the local chapter or a pattern of such behavior across multiple chapters.
  • They failed to properly train, supervise, or discipline their local chapter.
  • Their policies were inadequate or not enforced.

• University or Governing Board: The educational institution itself, or its board of regents/trustees, can be a defendant. Their liability might stem from:

  • Mishandling prior hazing complaints or incidents.
  • Failing to enforce their own anti-hazing policies.
  • Negligent supervision of student organizations.
  • Failure to provide a safe campus environment.
  • In cases of sex-based hazing or harassment, Title IX violations can create direct liability for the university. Public universities in Texas, such as the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and UT Austin, may assert sovereign immunity, but there are significant exceptions (e.g., gross negligence, some Title IX claims) that skilled attorneys can navigate to hold them accountable. Private institutions like SMU and Baylor generally have fewer immunity defenses.

• Third Parties: Depending on the specific circumstances, other entities might also bear responsibility:

  • Property Owners: Landlords of off-campus houses or owners of event venues where hazing occurred may be liable if they negligently rented the property or knew (or should have known) of dangerous activities.
  • Alcohol Providers: Bars, stores, or individuals who illegally provided alcohol to minors that contributed to hazing.
  • Security Companies: If hired for an event but failed to provide adequate security or oversight.

For families in Crane County and throughout Texas, understanding this multi-layered liability framework is key to building a comprehensive case for justice and ensuring all responsible parties are held accountable.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

The tragic stories of hazing victims nationwide serve as more than cautionary tales; they establish legal precedents, highlight patterns of institutional failure, and underscore the urgent need for stringent accountability. These cases transform abstract legal concepts like “foreseeability” into concrete realities, proving that organizations and universities often had prior knowledge of dangerous practices yet failed to act. For families in Crane County, these national anchor stories offer critical insights into the kinds of battles that can be fought and won in Texas.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

Forced or excessive alcohol consumption remains the leading cause of hazing-related fatalities. The common threads linking these tragedies are often alarming: a culture of forced drinking, peer pressure to consume dangerous amounts, and a callous delay in seeking medical help, all against the backdrop of an organization’s alleged anti-hazing policies.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017):
  The death of 19-year-old Timothy Piazza shocked the nation and became a watershed moment in hazing litigation. During a “bid acceptance” event, Piazza was allegedly forced to consume vast quantities of alcohol. Surveillance footage from the fraternity house chillingly documented Piazza suffering multiple severe falls, including a head-first tumble down a flight of stairs. Despite his obvious distress and visible injuries, fraternity brothers delayed calling 911 for over 12 hours, attempting to “care” for him themselves. Piazza later died from traumatic brain injuries and a ruptured spleen.

  • Legal Action: This case resulted in an unprecedented number of criminal charges—dozens of fraternity members faced over 1,000 criminal counts, including involuntary manslaughter. Civil litigation followed, resulting in settlements with both the fraternity and individuals.
  • Impact on Law: Pennsylvania enacted the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law, one of the toughest in the nation, making hazing a felony and increasing organizational accountability.
  • Takeaway for Texas: The Piazza case demonstrates that extreme intoxication, coupled with a deliberate delay in seeking medical aid and a culture of silence, can lead to devastating legal and criminal consequences for individuals and organizations. It highlights the importance of immediate, documented medical intervention.

• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017):
  Andrew Coffey, an FSU pledge, tragically died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. Reports indicated pledges were supplied with handles of hard liquor and pressured to consume them rapidly. Coffey’s death, occurring just months after Piazza’s, intensified national scrutiny on Greek life.

  • Legal Action: Multiple fraternity members faced criminal charges, with several pleading guilty to misdemeanor hazing. The Coffey family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, which was reportedly settled for a confidential amount.
  • Takeaway for Texas: This incident, and others like it, underscores how deeply ingrained “bottle exchange” or “Big/Little night” drinking rituals are in certain fraternities, creating a formulaic script for disaster. It exemplifies the foreseeable danger when organizations fail to curb these “traditions.”

• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017):
  Max Gruver, an 18-year-old LSU pledge, died after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game where wrong answers to fraternity trivia questions resulted in forced drinking. He was found with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.495%, a near-lethal level.

  • Legal Action: Several fraternity members were criminally charged, with one ultimately convicted of negligent homicide. The Gruver family settled their civil lawsuit with LSU for $6.1 million against individual and insurer.
  • Impact on Law: Louisiana passed the Max Gruver Act, significantly strengthening its anti-hazing laws and making felony hazing a reality in the state.
  • Takeaway for Texas: The Gruver case illustrates how seemingly innocuous “games” can conceal deadly hazing, and how legislative change often follows sustained public outrage and clear evidence of organizational misconduct.

• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021):
  Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old pledge at Bowling Green State University, died from alcohol poisoning after allegedly being forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey during a “Big/Little” event. Foltz’s death prompted national headlines and further fueled calls for hazing reform.

  • Legal Action: Multiple fraternity members were criminally charged and convicted of hazing-related offenses. The Foltz family reached a $10 million settlement in 2023, with $7 million coming from the national Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity and approximately $3 million from Bowling Green State University. Critically, Stone’s chapter president, Daylen Dunson, was ordered personally to pay $6.5 million to the Foltz family for his role, highlighting individual officer liability.
  • Takeaway for Texas: This substantial settlement, involving both the national fraternity and the university, proves that institutions and their leaders can be held financially accountable for their roles in hazing deaths. It establishes a powerful benchmark for negligence and foreseeability for Texas families pursuing similar claims.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, hazing encompasses physical abuse and degrading rituals, often shrouded in secrecy and performed in remote locations to evade detection.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013):
  Michael Deng, an 18-year-old pledge, died during a brutal fraternity retreat in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains. He was blindfolded, forced to wear a backpack filled with sand, and repeatedly tackled while being called racial slurs in a ritual known as the “glass ceiling.” Fraternity members delayed calling 911 for several hours, driving Deng’s unresponsive body around before finally seeking help.
  • Legal Action: This rare case led to the criminal conviction of the national fraternity itself for aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, alongside multiple individual members who received jail sentences. The Deng family settled their civil lawsuit for a confidential amount.
  • Impact on Law: Pi Delta Psi was banned from operating in Pennsylvania for 10 years and fined over $110,000.
  • Takeaway for Texas: The Deng case powerfully demonstrates that hazing occurring off-campus and at remote retreats does not absolve liability. It established a precedent for holding national organizations criminally responsible for their chapters’ actions, a critical insight for Crane County families understanding institutional culpability.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek life; it plagues athletic programs and other student organizations where power dynamics, team cohesion, and “tradition” are central.

• Northwestern University Football Scandal (2023–2025):
  In 2023, allegations of widespread sexualized and racist hazing within Northwestern’s highly successful football program came to light, spanning multiple years. Former players described systemic abuse, including forced nudity, inappropriate physical contact, and degrading rituals.
  • Legal Action: The scandal led to the firing of head coach Pat Fitzgerald, who subsequently filed a multi-million-dollar wrongful-termination lawsuit against the university, which was confidentially settled in August 2025. Multiple former players have also filed civil lawsuits against Northwestern and its coaching staff.
  • Takeaway for Texas: The Northwestern scandal serves as a stark reminder that hazing can permeate even elite athletic programs with strict disciplinary codes and high public profiles. It expands the scope of institutional accountability beyond Greek life, underscoring that no organization or institution is immune from the legal and reputational fallout of unchecked hazing. This pattern means that hazing at any Texas university—whether in a fraternity, an athletic team, or even the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets—can lead to similar legal challenges and demands for accountability.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These national tragedies reveal disturbing common threads: forced intoxication, severe physical and psychological abuse, deliberate and dangerous delays in seeking medical attention, and concerted efforts to cover up incidents. What begins as a misguided desire for “brotherhood” or “tradition” often escalates into criminal behavior, catastrophic injury, or wrongful death.

For Crane County families with children at Texas universities, these cases hold profound significance:

• Foreseeability: They establish a high degree of foreseeability. National fraternities, sororities, and universities can no longer credibly claim ignorance about the dangers of hazing. They have been warned repeatedly, through similar incidents across the country, about the deadly consequences of certain practices.
• Accountability: These cases have led to multi-million-dollar settlements and verdicts, criminal prosecutions, and significant legislative reforms. They demonstrate that when organizations and institutions fail to prevent hazing, they can and will be held accountable.
• Legal Strategy: The successful legal strategies employed in these landmark cases—focusing on systemic negligence, corporate-level liability, and the insidious nature of coerced “consent”—inform how experienced hazing litigation firms like Attorney911 build cases for justice in Texas.

Understanding these national patterns means that if your child is harmed by hazing at a Texas university, you are not facing an isolated incident; you are joining a national movement for accountability, armed with powerful legal precedents.

Texas Focus: UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, Baylor

For Crane County families, our focus on Texas universities is particularly acute. While Crane County itself does not host a large degree-granting institution, many of our local high school graduates venture to the major universities across the state. In particular, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M are popular destinations, with others like the University of Houston, SMU, and Baylor also drawing students from throughout rural and urban areas of Texas.

Attorney911 has deep roots in Texas, particularly in Houston, where we are actively litigating a major hazing case against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. This section provides detailed insights into hazing and policies at five key Texas universities.

University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston stands as a focal point for our firm’s ongoing advocacy, particularly with the Leonel Bermudez v. UH / Pi Kappa Phi lawsuit filed in late 2025. For Crane County families sending their children to this dynamic urban campus, roughly five hours east, understanding its environment is critical.

5.1.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

The University of Houston is a sprawling, diverse urban campus serving over 47,000 students. It offers a vibrant mix of commuter and residential life, reflecting Houston’s unique demographic tapestry. Greek life is active and influential, with a wide array of Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural fraternities and sororities. Beyond Greek life, UH boasts a multitude of student organizations, from cultural groups to sports clubs and highly competitive academic societies, all fostering a strong sense of community that, unfortunately, can sometimes be marred by hazing.

5.1.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

The University of Houston maintains a strict anti-hazing policy, clearly articulated in its Student Code of Conduct. Key tenets of this policy include:

• Zero Tolerance: Hazing is strictly prohibited, whether it occurs on-campus or off-campus.
• Broad Definition: UH’s definition of hazing aligns with state law, prohibiting forced consumption of alcohol, food, or drugs; sleep deprivation; physical mistreatment; mental distress; and any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or affiliation.
• Reporting: UH provides various channels for reporting hazing, including the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, and the University of Houston Police Department (UHPD). An online reporting form is also available.
• Transparency: In compliance with Texas law, UH publishes information about hazing violations and disciplinary actions taken against student organizations on its website, though the level of detail can sometimes be limited compared to other institutions.

5.1.3 Example Incident & Response: Leonel Bermudez v. UH / Pi Kappa Phi

Our firm, The Manginello Law Firm, is actively pursuing a $10 million lawsuit on behalf of Leonel Bermudez, a transfer student who endured severe hazing while pledging the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity’s Beta Nu chapter in late 2025. This case offers a chilling look at modern hazing tactics and their devastating consequences, particularly for Crane County families to understand.

Bermudez’s ordeal took place at various locations, including the Pi Kappa Phi chapter house, an off-campus residence, and Yellowstone Boulevard Park in Houston. The lawsuit alleges a pattern of escalating abuse, including:

• The “Fanny Pack Rule”: Pledges were forced to carry degrading items in a fanny pack 24/7, including condoms, a sex toy, and nicotine devices. Non-compliance allegedly resulted in threats of punishment or expulsion.
• Forced Physical Exertion: Bermudez and other pledges were made to participate in grueling, late-night workouts at Yellowstone Boulevard Park, including over 100 push-ups and 500 squats in a single session. This strenuous activity, often occurring after periods of sleep deprivation, left Bermudez unable to stand.
• Degrading Rituals: Pledges were allegedly subjected to cold-weather exposure in underwear, forced to lie in vomit-soaked grass, and sprayed with a hose “similar to waterboarding.”
• Forced Consumption: Bermudez was compelled to consume milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns until vomiting, followed immediately by sprints.
• Extreme Injuries: This sustained abuse led to Bermudez developing rhabdomyolysis (severe skeletal muscle breakdown) and acute kidney failure, evidenced by passing brown urine. He required a four-day hospitalization and faces a long-term risk of permanent kidney damage. His creatine kinase (CK) levels were critically high, confirming the diagnosis.
• Institutional Response: Following the allegations, Pi Kappa Phi national HQ suspended the Beta Nu chapter on November 6, 2025. The chapter members subsequently voted to surrender their charter on November 14, 2025, effectively shutting it down. The University of Houston issued a statement calling the conduct “deeply disturbing,” promising disciplinary measures up to expulsion, and pledging cooperation with law enforcement.

The lawsuit names the University of Houston, the UH System Board of Regents, Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters, the Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu housing corporation, and 13 individual fraternity leaders and members as defendants. As Ralph Manginello stated, “His urine was brown… We’re almost in 2026. This has to stop.” Our firm is committed to bringing this to light, as Lupe Peña emphasized, “If this prevents harm to another person… Let’s bring this to light. Enough is enough.”

5.1.4 How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Crane County families, understanding the procedural aspects of a hazing case originating at UH is important. Cases involving UH students are typically handled by Houston-area law enforcement (UHPD and/or Houston Police Department, depending on the specific location of the incident within the city). Civil lawsuits would likely be filed in Harris County civil courts.

Potential defendants in such cases usually include:

• Individual students directly involved in the hazing.
• The local chapter of the fraternity or sorority.
• The national fraternity or sorority’s headquarters.
• The University of Houston and its governing bodies, such as the UH System Board of Regents.
• Any third-party property owners of residences where hazing occurred.

Given the University of Houston’s status as a public institution, it may initially assert sovereign immunity. However, as demonstrated by the Bermudez lawsuit, experienced hazing attorneys can navigate these complexities, often seeking to prove exceptions to immunity based on gross negligence or other legal theories.

5.1.5 What UH Students & Parents Should Do

For Crane County parents with students at UH, proactive steps are vital:

• Familiarize yourself with UH’s hazing policy and reporting channels listed on its website.
• Maintain open communication with your child, looking for warning signs and asking direct, non-judgmental questions.
• Document everything: If hazing is suspected or occurs, immediately collect digital evidence (screenshots of texts, group chats), photos of injuries, and detailed notes of all incidents.
• Contact Attorney911: If you suspect hazing, or if your child has been injured, contacting a lawyer experienced in Houston-based hazing cases like ours is crucial. We can:
  • Help you preserve rapidly disappearing evidence.
  • Advise on reporting to UH authorities and law enforcement.
  • Navigate the university’s internal processes, which can be complex and intimidating, sometimes focused on protecting the institution rather than the victim.
  • Protect your child from potential retaliation.
  • Our direct involvement in the Bermudez case demonstrates our deep understanding of the risks and legal strategies relevant to hazing at UH.

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, a beloved institution for many Crane County families, presents a unique cultural landscape with its strong traditions and the prominent Corps of Cadets. Situated in College Station, approximately five hours northeast of Crane County, A&M’s campus environment requires a specific understanding from a hazing perspective.

5.2.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Texas A&M is renowned for its deeply ingrained traditions, vibrant school spirit, and vast student body (over 70,000 students). The university is heavily influenced by the Corps of Cadets, one of the largest uniformed bodies of students in the nation, which fosters a distinct military-style culture. Beyond the Corps, Greek life thrives with a significant number of fraternities and sororities, and numerous other student organizations. This atmosphere, while fostering immense loyalty and camaraderie, can sometimes create environments where “tradition” is mistakenly conflated with hazing.

5.2.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Texas A&M has a clear and assertive anti-hazing policy, emphasizing that hazing is illegal and strictly prohibited:

• Comprehensive Prohibition: The university explicitly prohibits any intentional, knowing, or reckless act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation, affiliation, or membership. This broad prohibition covers all student organizations, including Greek life, athletic teams, the Corps of Cadets, and any informal groups.
• Reporting: Texas A&M encourages reporting through its Division of Student Affairs, the University Police Department (UPD), and an online reporting system. The university also maintains a Hazing Portal for transparency and reporting.
• Transparency: A&M publishes a comprehensive list of hazing allegations and findings on its website in accordance with state law. This transparency provides valuable insight into the types of incidents and organizations involved across campus.

5.2.3 Example Incidents & Response

Texas A&M’s history includes several significant hazing incidents, highlighting the diverse contexts in which hazing can occur:

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) Lawsuit (circa 2021): This incident involved grave allegations of physical hazing where pledges were allegedly forced to endure strenuous activity and then subjected to substances being poured on them, including industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit. This resulted in severe chemical burns requiring extensive skin graft surgeries for at least two pledges. The fraternity was suspended by the university, and a lawsuit seeking $1 million was filed against the organization.
• Corps of Cadets Lawsuit (2023): A former cadet filed a lawsuit alleging degrading and abusive hazing within the Corps. He claimed he was subjected to simulated sexual acts and tied up between beds in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. The university stated it addressed the matter through its internal processes, but the lawsuit sought over $1 million in damages, drawing attention to alleged hazing within this storied institution.
• Aggie Bonfire Collapse (1999): While not traditional hazing, the tragic collapse of the student-built Aggie Bonfire, which killed 12 and injured 27, raised profound questions about student-led high-risk activities and institutional oversight. Multiple lawsuits against university officials resulted in settlements exceeding $6 million. This event underscores the university’s potential liability for student-run, tradition-based events.

These incidents, ranging from Greek life to the Corps and other student activities, demonstrate that hazing, and its associated dangers, can manifest across Texas A&M’s diverse campus.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing cases originating at Texas A&M would involve law enforcement from College Station (e.g., College Station Police Department or UPD) and potentially Brazos County Sheriff’s Office. Civil lawsuits would typically be heard in Brazos County district courts.

As a public university, Texas A&M may assert sovereign immunity. However, the tragic history of the Aggie Bonfire settlements, along with the ongoing legal challenges related to the Corps and Greek life, show that such immunity is not absolute. Legal claims against A&M could focus on failures of supervision, policy enforcement, or a “deliberate indifference” to known hazing patterns.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M Students & Parents Should Do

For Crane County families with students attending Texas A&M, diligent preparation and vigilance are key:

• Review A&M’s Hazing Portal: Thoroughly examine the university’s online Hazing Portal, which lists sanctioned organizations and details of hazing violations. This is a vital public record often demonstrating patterns of behavior.
• Understand Corps Regulations: If your child is in the Corps of Cadets, understand the specific regulations regarding traditions, training, and prohibited activities to distinguish legitimate challenges from hazing.
• Document Everything: In the event of suspected hazing, gather all possible evidence—screenshots of digital communications, photos of injuries or activity locations, detailed personal notes. Speedy collection is critical for these large institutions.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Contact Attorney911 immediately if hazing is suspected or confirmed. Our experience with complex litigation against large institutions, including those with unique cultures like A&M, positions us to:
  • Mount a thorough, independent investigation.
  • Navigate claims of sovereign immunity.
  • Effectively challenge institutional narratives and defense strategies.
  • Help your family seek the accountability and justice you deserve.

University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution for many Crane County graduates, is a campus rich in tradition, academic rigor, and a vibrant student culture. Located approximately four hours east of Crane County, UT Austin’s environment, while dynamic, has also been the setting for significant hazing incidents, underscoring the universal nature of this problem.

5.3.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

As one of the largest and most prestigious public universities in the U.S., UT Austin educates over 52,000 students. It boasts a thriving Greek life system, highly competitive athletic programs, and a myriad of student organizations, including numerous spirit and tradition groups deeply embedded in the university’s identity. This strong emphasis on tradition can, at times, blur the lines between cherished rituals and harmful hazing.

5.3.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

UT Austin maintains one of the most proactive and transparent anti-hazing stances among Texas universities:

• Clear Prohibition: Hazing is explicitly prohibited and defined in alignment with Texas Education Code. This prohibition extends to all student organizations, on or off campus, and includes any act that endangers physical or mental health, causes humiliation, or involves coerced activity.
• Robust Reporting: UT encourages reporting hazing through various channels: the Student Conduct office, the University of Texas Police Department (UTPD), and an anonymous online reporting form. The university also emphasizes its commitment to the Clery Act and Title IX, ensuring that related incidents are addressed.
• Public Hazing Violations Log: Critically, UT Austin maintains a public Hazing Violations Log on its website, which provides detailed accounts of investigations, findings, sanctions, and the specific hazing conduct involved. This unparalleled transparency makes UT a leader in public accountability.

5.3.3 Example Incidents & Response

UT Austin’s Hazing Violations Log provides a candid look at recurring hazing issues:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2023): The log detailed an incident where new members were required to consume milk and undergo strenuous calisthenics. This was classified as hazing, leading to the chapter being placed on probation and mandated to implement hazing-prevention education. This reemphasizes national patterns of physical and forced-consumption hazing seen in other Pike incidents (e.g., Stone Foltz).
• Texas Cowboys (2018): This prominent spirit organization, historically involved in the Aggie Bonfire (later banned in Texas), faced severe sanctions following the death of a “new man” after a pledge event. Parents alleged sleep deprivation was a factor, and the university, while denying the direct link between hazing and the death, acknowledged significant “hazing and animal abuse” had occurred, leading to the expulsion of some members. The organization was suspended, highlighting that deeply ingrained traditions can pose significant risks.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (2006 & 2024): A 2006 incident listed in the Nuwer database shows a hazing-related death (Tyler Cross) from a fall while under the influence of alcohol. More recently, in January 2024 an Australian exchange student alleged severe assault by members of the SAE chapter at UT. The student claimed injuries including a dislocated leg, torn ligaments, a fractured tibia, and a broken nose, and sought over $1 million in damages. This chapter was already suspended for prior hazing/safety violations when the alleged assault occurred. This pattern of alleged incidents with SAE, including a traumatic brain injury lawsuit at the University of Alabama, points to ongoing national issues within the organization.

The recurring incidents, despite UT’s transparent reporting, highlight the persistent challenge of hazing even at institutions committed to tackling the problem.

5.3.4 How a UT Austin Hazing Case Might Proceed

Hazing cases at UT Austin would involve UTPD and/or Austin Police Department, with civil lawsuits typically filed in Travis County district courts. Due to UT Austin’s status as a public institution, it may initially invoke sovereign immunity, but exceptions often apply.

The availability of UT’s public Hazing Violations Log is a critical advantage for legal teams. It can establish a pattern of misconduct by specific organizations and, importantly, demonstrate the university’s knowledge of these patterns. This makes it easier to argue foreseeability and negligent supervision on the part of the university.

5.3.5 What UT Austin Students & Parents Should Do

For Crane County families with students at UT Austin, particular attention should be paid to the university’s comprehensive data:

• Consult the Hazing Violations Log: This public resource is an invaluable tool for parents and students to research organizations before pledging. Understand the specific types of violations and the sanctions imposed.
• Utilize UT’s Reporting Channels: Be aware of the various reporting options available, including the Student Conduct office and UTPD. The university’s emphasis on transparency often means these reports are taken seriously.
• Act Quickly to Document: Given the high level of digital communication among students, immediate screenshotting of texts, group chats, and social media posts is crucial. Medical documentation for any injuries is equally important.
• Contact Attorney911: Our firm’s expertise in large university litigation and our understanding of aggressive institutional defense strategies make us well-equipped to manage hazing cases at UT Austin. We can leverage public records, conduct independent investigations, and develop a comprehensive legal strategy to hold all responsible parties accountable. We understand that UT, despite its transparency, will deploy robust legal defenses, and your family needs equally robust representation.

Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, a distinguished private institution nestled in Dallas, is a frequent destination for students from Crane County and affluent areas across Texas. Located approximately six and a half hours northeast of Crane County, SMU’s vibrant Greek life and exclusive atmosphere bring their own unique set of considerations when it comes to hazing.

5.4.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

SMU is a private, well-regarded university with a strong academic reputation and a significant emphasis on Greek life, which plays a central role in its social scene. The campus environment often fosters deep-seated traditions within fraternities and sororities, which, like many institutions, can sometimes lead to hazing incidents disguised as “rites of passage.” The university prides itself on a close-knit community but is not immune to the challenges posed by organizational misconduct.

5.4.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

SMU maintains a clear anti-hazing policy consistent with Texas law, emphasizing student safety and organizational accountability:

• Strict Prohibition: Hazing is explicitly forbidden for all student organizations, whether affiliated with the university or not, and regardless of location (on or off campus). The policy broadly defines hazing to include any acts that could endanger mental or physical health, cause humiliation, or involve coercion.
• Reporting: SMU provides confidential reporting avenues through its Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, the SMU Police Department (SMU PD), and various online reporting forms. The university also works to educate students about what constitutes hazing and their responsibility to report.
• Transparency: As a private institution, SMU’s public reporting of specific hazing incidents and disciplinary actions may be less detailed than public universities like UT Austin, but it strives to comply with state mandates. Families can often find aggregated data on the university’s website.

5.4.3 Example Incident & Response

SMU has faced its share of hazing incidents, demonstrating that such issues are not limited by institutional type or perceived campus culture:

• Kappa Alpha Order Incident (2017): This incident led to significant disciplinary action against a prominent fraternity. New members were reportedly subjected to physical abuse, including paddling, forced excessive alcohol consumption, and severe sleep deprivation. The university responded with a multi-year suspension for the chapter, imposing stringent restrictions on its operations and future recruitment until its eventual return. This particular incident reflects broader national concerns about Kappa Alpha Order, which has faced similar hazing allegations at other campuses.

These incidents highlight the persistent nature of hazing even within well-resourced private university settings, where the pressure to maintain image can sometimes complicate transparency.

5.4.4 How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed

Law enforcement involved in SMU hazing cases would typically include the SMU Police Department and/or the Dallas Police Department, as the campus is integrated into metropolitan Dallas. Civil lawsuits would generally be filed in Dallas County district courts.

As a private institution, SMU does not benefit from sovereign immunity, making it potentially more vulnerable to direct claims of negligence, negligent supervision, and breach of duty under Texas law. However, private universities like SMU often invest heavily in robust legal defense teams, making it crucial for plaintiffs to have equally experienced and aggressive representation.

5.4.5 What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

For Crane County families with students at SMU, specific considerations are pertinent:

• Understand SMU’s Greek Culture: Greek life is deeply embedded in SMU’s social fabric. Parents and students should research an organization’s history, not just from the university’s records, but also through independent sources and national hazing websites.
• Focus on Documentation: Given the potential for less public transparency from private institutions, diligent personal documentation of hazing incidents—photos, videos, timestamps, eyewitness accounts—is even more vital. Digital communications are key.
• Early Legal Engagement: If hazing is suspected or confirmed, consulting with Attorney911 is highly recommended. Our firm’s experience with:
  • Litigating against well-funded private institutions.
  • Navigating complex insurance defense strategies.
  • Understanding the cultural nuances of institutions like SMU.
  • Positions us to effectively advocate for your child’s rights and seek comprehensive accountability. Our legal team understands how to compel the release of internal records and evidence, even when a private institution may be reluctant to share them publicly.

Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist institution with a strong sense of community and tradition, is another key university for Crane County families, particularly those in Central Texas. Located in Waco, approximately four hours northeast of Crane County, Baylor has faced intense scrutiny in recent years over campus safety and institutional oversight, creating a unique context for understanding hazing.

5.5.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Baylor is one of the largest private universities in Texas, deeply rooted in its Christian mission and traditions. It fosters a vibrant student life with a significant Greek presence, numerous athletic programs, and faith-based organizations. While dedicated to shaping students’ character, Baylor’s recent history, particularly concerning its handling of Title IX and sexual assault allegations, has put its institutional oversight under a national microscope. This history influences how hazing allegations are perceived and, ideally, addressed.

5.5.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Baylor University maintains a strict anti-hazing policy that is publicly accessible and integrated into its student conduct code:

• Absolute Prohibition: Hazing, consistent with Texas law, is absolutely prohibited for all university-affiliated groups. Baylor’s policy defines hazing broadly to include any act that could endanger mental or physical well-being, cause humiliation, or involve forced participation, often under the guise of “initiation.”
• Reporting: Baylor provides multiple reporting mechanisms, including the Office of Student Conduct, the Baylor Police Department (BUPD), and an anonymous online reporting system. The university has also emphasized increased training and awareness initiatives in response to past criticisms of its institutional culture.
• Transparency: In compliance with state law, Baylor publishes a log of hazing violations and organizational sanctions on its website, providing some level of public insight into incidents.

5.5.3 Example Incident & Response

Baylor’s recent institutional challenges provide a backdrop for its hazing incidents:

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): This incident, occurring within a prominent athletic program, resulted in the suspension of 14 baseball players due to a hazing investigation. The suspensions were staggered to minimize direct impact on the team’s season, which drew some criticism, but the university did take formal punitive action. While specific details of the hazing were confidential, the incident underscored that hazing can occur even within highly visible and often-supervised athletic teams at faith-based institutions.

Baylor’s ongoing efforts to rebuild trust and redefine its institutional culture in the wake of prior scandals mean that hazing allegations are generally treated with heightened sensitivity and a greater push for public accountability, compared to previous eras.

5.5.4 How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed

Law enforcement for hazing incidents at Baylor would typically involve the Baylor Police Department and/or the Waco Police Department, with civil lawsuits generally processed in McLennan County district courts.

As a private university, Baylor does not assert sovereign immunity as public institutions might. However, similar to SMU, it has extensive legal resources and will vigorously defend against claims. The broader context of Baylor’s institutional culture, its past challenges with Title IX compliance, and its public commitments to student safety would likely play a significant role in any hazing litigation.

5.5.5 What Baylor University Students & Parents Should Do

For Crane County families whose children attend Baylor, the institutional environment requires a nuanced approach to hazing concerns:

• Be Aware of Institutional Context: Recognize that Baylor is still navigating the aftermath of prior scandals. This can influence how hazing reports are handled; while there may be a greater imperative for accountability, there can also be a strong desire for crisis management.
• Document Religiously: As with any private institution, meticulous documentation of all hazing allegations, communications, and university responses is essential. Digital evidence from phone apps is paramount.
• Prioritize Confidentiality and Support: If your child confides in you about hazing, seek confidential support from mental health professionals if needed, and ensure all discussions about legal avenues happen with a trusted attorney.
• Engage Experienced Counsel: Contact Attorney911 experts if hazing is suspected or has occurred. Our firm’s ability to handle complex cases against powerful defendants, including those with unique institutional histories like Baylor, provides families with a strong advocate. We understand how to challenge institutional narratives and ensure that hazing allegations at Baylor are met with comprehensive legal action.

Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

For families in Crane County, understanding the specific fraternities and sororities active at Texas universities means recognizing their local chapters within the context of their national organizations. The national histories of these groups, particularly regarding hazing, can play a pivotal role in proving liability and securing justice in civil litigation. This section is not an exhaustive list but highlights the presence of key national organizations across the surveyed campuses and connects them to broader patterns.

Why National Histories Matter

When a student organization at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, or Baylor faces new hazing allegations, it is rarely an isolated incident from a legal perspective. Most fraternities and sororities are part of larger, national (and sometimes international) organizations. These national entities typically:

• Establish Policies: They create comprehensive anti-hazing policies, risk management guidelines, and educational programs for their local chapters.
• Collect Dues: They collect dues from local chapters and members, signifying a relationship of oversight and responsibility.
• Oversee Chapters: They send national representatives or consultants to visit chapters, provide training, and investigate violations.

However, the very existence of these policies and oversight mechanisms often stems from a grim history: national organizations are acutely aware of the dangers of hazing because their chapters have faced deaths and catastrophic injuries in the past. When a Texas chapter repeats the same dangerous “tradition” that led to a lawsuit or a chapter closure in another state, that establishes foreseeability for the national organization. This “prior knowledge” can be a powerful legal argument for negligence or even punitive damages against national headquarters, regardless of whether they “knew” about the specific incident in Texas.

Organization Mapping: Connecting Local Chapters to National Patterns

While we cannot list every single fraternity and sorority chapter at every Texas university, it is crucial for Crane County families to understand that major national groups with documented hazing histories are present on these campuses. Here, we synthesize some of these organizations and their national hazing patterns.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike):

  • Presence: Active at many Texas universities, including UT Austin and Texas A&M.
  • National Pattern: Nationally, Pi Kappa Alpha has a deeply troubling hazing history. The tragic 2021 death of Stone Foltz at Bowling Green State University (Ohio) resulted from forced alcohol consumption during a “Big/Little” event, and led to a $10 million settlement with the Foltz family (including $7 million from the national fraternity). Another prominent case involved the 2012 death of David Bogenberger at Northern Illinois University, also due to alcohol poisoning during a fraternity event, resulting in a $14 million settlement. These incidents demonstrate a clear national pattern of dangerous alcohol hazing.
  • Relevance to Texas: If a Pike chapter at a Texas university engages in similar alcohol-related “Big/Little” events, it directly connects to this national pattern of foreseeability for Pi Kappa Alpha.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE):

  • Presence: Established chapters at universities such as UT Austin, Texas A&M, and other Texas schools.
  • National Pattern: Sigma Alpha Epsilon has been labeled “America’s deadliest fraternity” by some media outlets due to a high number of hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide over decades. A recent traumatic brain injury case was filed against SAE at the University of Alabama (2023) alleging severe injury during hazing. Significantly, SAE at Texas A&M faced a $1 million lawsuit (circa 2021) after pledges allegedly suffered severe chemical burns requiring skin graft surgeries from substances poured on them. The UT Austin SAE chapter faced a lawsuit (2024) after an exchange student alleged severe assault at a chapter event.
  • Relevance to Texas: The Texas-specific incidents with SAE, combined with its national track record, demonstrate a pattern of dangerous behavior. Any allegations against an SAE chapter in Texas would directly resonate with this extensive national and in-state history.

• Phi Delta Theta (Phi Delt):

  • Presence: Chapters found at UT Austin, Texas A&M, and Baylor, amongst others.
  • National Pattern: Phi Delta Theta is linked to the 2017 death of Max Gruver at Louisiana State University (LSU), where he died from alcohol poisoning during a “Bible study” drinking game. This tragic event led to the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana, a felony hazing statute, and a civil settlement with the family.
  • Relevance to Texas: The Gruver case establishes a national pattern of dangerous forced-drinking games, making any similar allegations against a Phi Delta Theta chapter in Texas highly foreseeable for the national organization.

• Pi Kappa Phi (Pi Kapp):

  • Presence: Active chapters at the University of Houston (where our Bermudez case is ongoing) and numerous other Texas universities.
  • National Pattern: Pi Kappa Phi is associated with the 2017 death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (FSU), who died from acute alcohol poisoning at a “Big Brother Night,” following allegations of pledges being given handles of hard liquor.
  • Relevance to Texas: The ongoing Leonel Bermudez case at UH, alleging rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney failure from physical and forced-consumption hazing, directly reflects Pi Kappa Phi’s national pattern of severe hazing incidents, underscoring the national organization’s alleged failures in oversight and enforcement.

• Kappa Alpha Order (KA):

  • Presence: Chapters found at SMU, Texas A&M, and UT Austin.
  • National Pattern: Kappa Alpha Order has faced numerous hazing allegations and suspensions at campuses nationwide, including the significant SMU incident in 2017 that resulted in a multi-year suspension for the chapter after reports of paddling, forced drinking, and sleep deprivation.
  • Relevance to Texas: The SMU incident itself is a pivotal part of the national pattern for Kappa Alpha Order, demonstrating a history of physical and alcohol-related hazing that the national organization has struggled to control.

• Omega Psi Phi (Que Doggs):

  • Presence: Chapters at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in Texas, and other institutions with active NPHC Greek life.
  • National Pattern: The 1997 Joseph Snell case at Bowie State University (Maryland), where Snell endured severe beatings and burns over a four-week period, led to a $375,000 verdict against Omega Psi Phi, establishing a precedent for holding national organizations directly liable. More recently, in April 2023 at the University of Southern Mississippi, former student Rafeal Joseph filed a federal lawsuit alleging recurrent, severe beatings with a wooden paddle during “Hell Night,” necessitating emergency surgery and months of rehabilitation. This pattern of physical abuse, despite national prohibitions, underscores ongoing risks.

• Other Notables: Organizations like Sigma Chi, Delta Tau Delta, and Phi Kappa Psi have also been implicated in significant national hazing incidents, including multi-million-dollar settlements. For example, a Sigma Chi chapter at the College of Charleston received a $10 million+ verdict for hazing-related injuries (2024), while a Phi Kappa Psi chapter at San Diego State University faced felony charges (2024) after a pledge was set on fire during a skit, sustaining third-degree burns. These cases collectively paint a picture of widespread risk across the Greek system.

Tie Back to Legal Strategy

For Crane County families and all Texans, understanding these national patterns is absolutely critical for successful legal action:

• Foreseeability: The extensive record of hazing incidents, particularly those involving severe injury or death, demonstrates that national fraternities, sororities, and universities have repeatedly been put on notice about the dangers inherent in certain “traditions” and practices. They cannot credibly claim ignorance when a similar incident occurs in Texas.
• Negligent Supervision: This pattern evidence allows attorneys to argue that national organizations and universities failed in their duty to adequately supervise, warn, and implement effective hazing prevention strategies, leading to foreseeable harm.
• Insurance Coverage: Documented national patterns strengthen arguments for insurance coverage, as it proves that the risks were well-known and should have been accounted for. Many hazing policies have clauses that trigger based on prior knowledge or similar incidents.
• Punitive Damages: In cases of egregious misconduct, a history of ignoring warnings and allowing dangerous patterns to persist can support claims for punitive damages. These damages are designed to punish reckless behavior and deter future misconduct.

Our firm leverages this comprehensive understanding of national hazing patterns to build robust cases for our Texas clients, knowing that often, the alleged acts in Texas are not isolated but rather part of a larger, systemic problem that institutions have known about for years.

Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

Successfully litigating a hazing case in Texas requires meticulous evidence collection, a deep understanding of potential damages, and a strategic approach to challenging powerful defendants. For Crane County families, our firm, Attorney911, brings decades of experience to bear on these complex cases, ensuring every angle is covered in the pursuit of justice.

Evidence: The Foundation of Your Case

In hazing litigation, evidence is paramount. Modern hazing, unfortunately, leaves a digital footprint, making digital communications the new “smoking gun.”

• Digital Communications: This is often the most critical category of evidence in today’s hazing cases.

  • Group Messaging Apps: Platforms like GroupMe (pervasive in Greek life), WhatsApp, iMessage/SMS group texts, Signal, Telegram, Discord servers, and even fraternity/sorority-specific apps are treasure troves of evidence. These messages can reveal detailed plans, directives, discussions about hazing acts, “punishments,” evidence of cover-ups, and the identities of those involved. It’s crucial to screenshot full threads with timestamps and participant names visible immediately. If messages are set to disappear or are deleted, digital forensics can often recover them, but initial screenshots are invaluable.
  • Social Media Evidence: Instagram, Snapchat (though ephemeral snaps are difficult to recover), TikTok, and Facebook often contain posts or stories showing hazing events, photos/videos of humiliating acts, forced drinking (even if captioned as “fun”), and comments that provide critical context. Location tags can pinpoint where events happened, and hashtags or captions (e.g., #pledgelife, #newmember) can tie content directly to organizational activities.
  • Text Messages / Direct Messages (DMs): Personal communications between members, pledges, or witnesses can provide direct proof of coercion, instructions for hazing, discussions about injuries, or plans for cover-ups. Preserve entire conversation threads with full context and timestamps.
  • Emails: Official chapter communications, calendar invites to “mandatory” events, and correspondence with national organizations or university officials can shed light on organizational knowledge and involvement.

• Photos & Videos: Beyond digital messages, visual evidence is incredibly powerful.

  • Injuries: If injuries occur, photograph immediately from multiple angles, with close-ups, and include a ruler or coin for scale. Continue photographing over several days to document progression. Medical records, photographs, and videos taken by other members often become critical pieces of proof.
  • Locations & Events: Photos or videos of where hazing occurred (house, specific room, off-campus venue) are important. If safe to do so, video recordings of hazing in progress or admissions by members are invaluable, but never put personal safety at risk.

• Medical and Psychological Records: These records provide objective evidence of physical and mental harm.

  • Emergency Room (ER) / Hospital Records: Documentation of injuries, ambulance reports, lab results (blood alcohol content, toxicology, creatine kinase levels for rhabdomyolysis), and imaging (X-rays, CT scans) are essential. It’s vital for a victim to tell medical providers how the injury occurred (e.g., “I was forced to drink by my fraternity”) so it is explicitly documented as hazing-related.
  • Psychological Evaluations: Records from therapists, psychologists, or psychiatrists diagnosing PTSD, depression, anxiety, or other trauma-related conditions are crucial for documenting and quantifying emotional distress, a significant component of non-economic damages.

• Internal Organization Documents: These documents provide a look behind the curtain.

  • Pledge Manuals/Initiation Scripts: These materials, even if sanitized, can reveal official expectations and sometimes hide coded language for hazing.
  • Risk Management Files & Policies: National and local chapters’ internal documents regarding their rules, anti-hazing policies, and records of prior incidents.

• University Records: These records demonstrate institutional knowledge and patterns of behavior.

  • Prior Conduct Files: History of disciplinary actions against the specific chapter or organization at the university.
  • Incident Reports: Records from campus police, student conduct offices, or Title IX investigations.
  • Public Hazing Logs: Universities like UT Austin provide public logs detailing hazing violations, which can demonstrate a pattern of misconduct and prior warnings.

• Witness Testimony: The accounts of other pledges, members (especially remorseful or former members), roommates, RAs, or bystanders who observed the hazing. Defense experts are often brought in to testify on group dynamics and power imbalances in hazing environments.

Damages: Recovering What Was Lost

Hazing exacts a devastating toll, both financially and emotionally. Civil litigation aims to compensate victims and their families for the full scope of damages incurred.

• Economic Damages: These are quantifiable financial losses:

  • Medical Expenses: Covering past medical bills (ER, hospitalization, surgery, medication, therapy) and future medical needs, including long-term care plans for catastrophic injuries (e.g., for severe brain injury or organ damage).
  • Lost Income & Earning Capacity: Compensation for lost wages due to injury, lost educational opportunities (e.g., missed semesters, lost scholarships), and diminished future earning potential if injuries result in permanent disability.
  • Other Costs: Property damage (e.g., to phone or car during an incident) or relocation costs if a student must transfer schools due to trauma.

• Non-Economic Damages: These address intangible losses and suffering:

  • Physical Pain & Suffering: For the direct pain from injuries and any ongoing discomfort from permanent conditions.
  • Emotional Distress & Psychological Harm: Addressing conditions like PTSD, depression, anxiety, humiliation, and loss of dignity.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Compensating for the inability to participate in cherished activities, withdrawal from social life, and the loss of the expected college experience.

• Wrongful Death Damages: In the most tragic cases, where hazing results in death, surviving family members can pursue a wrongful death claim (as in our Bermudez case). These damages may cover:

  • Funeral and Burial Costs: Direct expenses related to the death.
  • Loss of Financial Support: Compensation for economic contributions the deceased would have made to the family.
  • Loss of Companionship, Love, and Society: Recognizing the profound emotional void left by the deceased.
  • Grief and Emotional Suffering: Addressing the deep sorrow and trauma experienced by the family.

• Punitive Damages: When hazing involves particularly egregious, reckless, or malicious conduct, punitive damages may be sought. These are designed not to compensate the victim but to punish the defendants for their extreme behavior and to deter similar actions in the future. Texas law allows for punitive damages in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, but often with caps depending on the specific claims.

Strategy: Challenging Powerful Defendants

Hazing litigation is rarely straightforward. Defendants – individual students, local chapters, national organizations, and universities – often mount vigorous defenses:

• “The Pledge Consented/It Was Voluntary”: This is a primary defense. However, Texas law explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing, recognizing that power imbalances and peer pressure negate true voluntariness. We leverage expert testimony on group dynamics and coercion to counter these claims.
• “Rogue Chapter/National Didn’t Know”: National organizations often try to distance themselves from local chapter actions. Our strategy involves uncovering pattern evidence, showing prior hazing incidents across the national organization or at the local chapter that put the national body on notice (actual or constructive) of foreseeable risks.
• “Happened Off-Campus/Not Our Property”: This defense is often used for incidents at off-campus houses or private venues. However, if the organization is affiliated with the university, or the national organization exercises control, their liability often extends beyond campus borders. Major cases like Michael Deng’s death at a remote retreat demonstrate this principle.
• Sovereign Immunity (Public Universities): Public universities like UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin may claim sovereign immunity. Our firm meticulously investigates for exceptions, such as gross negligence, or pursues claims against individual employees in their personal capacities. We also understand that even with immunity, universities may settle to avoid negative publicity and the costs of litigation.
• Insurance Coverage Disputes: Fraternity and university insurers frequently try to deny coverage, arguing that hazing is an “intentional act” excluded from policies. Our firm, particularly with Lupe Peña’s insider knowledge as a former insurance defense attorney, is skilled at challenging these denials, proving that the negligent supervision by the organization or university triggered coverage.

For Crane County families and all Texas families, building a successful hazing case demands experienced legal counsel who understand these complexities. Our approach combines aggressive investigation, expert legal analysis, and compassionate advocacy to ensure maximum accountability and recovery.

Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Case

In the chaotic aftermath of a hazing incident, families and victims, acting out of stress or misinformation, can inadvertently make decisions that severely jeopardize their legal case. We urge Crane County families to be aware of these critical mistakes:

1. Letting Your Child Delete Messages or “Clean Up” Evidence:

   • What Parents Think: “I don’t want them to get in more trouble” or “I want to protect their privacy.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: Deleting evidence allows the hazing perpetrators to cover their tracks easily. It can look like a cover-up, makes your case significantly harder to prove, and can even carry legal consequences for obstruction.
   • What to do Instead: Preserve everything immediately, even embarrassing or seemingly minor content. Text messages, group chats, photos, videos—they are invaluable. Watch Attorney911’s video on using your cellphone to document a legal case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs

2. Confronting the Fraternity/Sorority Directly:

   • What Parents Think: “I need to go demand answers directly from them.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: Your direct confrontation will immediately put the organization on high alert. They will “lawyer up,” instruct members to delete evidence, coach witnesses on what to say, and start building their defense against you. You will lose the element of surprise and critical evidence.
   • What to do Instead: Document everything privately, then consult with a lawyer before any direct communication with the organization or its members.

3. Signing University “Release” or “Resolution” Forms:

   • What Universities Do: They often pressure families to accept internal “resolutions,” sign waivers, confidentiality agreements, or small settlements in exchange for closing the matter or avoiding public disciplinary action.
   • Why It’s Wrong: You may inadvertently waive your right to pursue further legal action, and any settlement offered is likely far below the true value of your case. Universities often prioritize protecting their image over fully compensating your child.
   • What to do Instead: Do NOT sign anything from the university without legal counsel reviewing it first. Politely decline and state that your attorney will handle all communications.

4. Posting Details on Social Media Before Talking to a Lawyer:

   • What Families Think: “I want everyone to know what happened and warn others.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: While understandable, premature social media posts can be weaponized against your case. Defense attorneys will screenshot everything, scrutinize inconsistencies, and use your posts to attack your child’s credibility, character, or the facts of the incident. It can also inadvertently waive legal privileges.
   • What to do Instead: Document details privately and share them only with your attorney. Let your lawyer guide the strategic release of information, if appropriate, to maximize legal impact.

5. Letting Your Child Go Back to “One Last Meeting” or “Talk it Out”:

   • What Fraternities/Sororities Say: “Come talk to us before you do anything drastic” or “Let’s resolve this internally.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: Once you are considering legal action, any direct contact with the organization puts your child in a vulnerable position. They may be subjected to pressure, intimidation, or coerced into making statements that can damage their case later.
   • What to do Instead: Once you’ve consulted with an attorney, all future communications with the organization or its members should be handled by your legal counsel.

6. Waiting “to See How the University Handles It”:

   • What Universities Promise: “We’re investigating; let us handle this internally.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: University investigations are for internal policy violations, not necessarily for criminal justice or civil compensation. They move at their own pace, and they primarily serve the institution’s interests. Crucial evidence can disappear, witnesses graduate, and the statute of limitations (the time limit to file a lawsuit) can expire while you wait.
   • What to do Instead: Preserve evidence immediately and consult a lawyer. University processes do not equal real accountability or compensation. Learn about Texas statute of limitations in our video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHwg8tV02c

7. Talking to Insurance Adjusters Without a Lawyer:

   • What Adjusters Say: “We just need your statement to process the claim.”
   • Why It’s Wrong: Insurance adjusters are trained to gather information that benefits their client—the fraternity’s or university’s insurer—not your child. Recorded statements can be edited, taken out of context, and used against your case. Early settlements offered are almost always significantly undervalued.
   • What to do Instead: Politely decline to provide any statement. State, “My attorney will contact you,” and then immediately inform your legal counsel.

Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities (like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin) have some sovereign immunity protections, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, certain Title IX violations, and when suing individual employees in their personal capacities. Private universities (like SMU, Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections and can be sued more directly for negligence. Every case depends on specific facts; contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis.

• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  It can be. While hazing is typically a Class B misdemeanor, it becomes a state jail felony under Texas law if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Individuals in leadership roles can also face charges for failing to report hazing. Criminal charges against those involved in hazing are often pursued in parallel with civil lawsuits.

• “Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
  Yes. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. This is a critical protection for victims, recognizing that “agreement” given under peer pressure, a power imbalance, or fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent in the eyes of the law.

• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas?”
  Generally, you have 2 years from the date of injury or death to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this period if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraudulent concealment, the statute of limitations may be tolled (paused). Time is absolutely critical in these cases—evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations destroy records. Do not delay; call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately for an evaluation of your specific timeline.

• “What if the hazing happened off-campus or at a private house?”
  The location of hazing does not eliminate liability for the involved organizations or, potentially, the university. Many major hazing cases that resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments (like the Pi Delta Psi retreat death of Michael Deng or the Sigma Pi unofficial house death of Collin Wiant) occurred off-campus. Universities and national fraternities can still be held liable based on their sponsorship, control, knowledge of dangerous practices, and the foreseeability of harm.

• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  Your privacy is a priority. Most hazing cases resolve through confidential settlements before going to trial. Our legal team can explore options to request sealed court records and negotiate confidentiality clauses in settlements to protect your family’s privacy while still pursuing accountability.

About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces the devastating impact of hazing, you need more than just a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who intimately understand how powerful institutions—national fraternities, universities, and their multi-million-dollar insurance carriers—fight back, and how to win anyway. For Crane County families, The Manginello Law Firm, operating as Attorney911, is uniquely equipped to stand by your side.

From our Houston office, we serve families throughout Texas, including Crane County and surrounding regions. We understand that hazing at Texas universities impacts families across the Lone Star State. Our firm brings together a powerful combination of experience and insight perfectly suited for hazing litigation:

• Insurance Insider Advantage: Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/), previously served as a defense attorney for national insurance companies. She knows precisely how fraternity and university insurance carriers evaluate (and often undervalue) hazing claims. She understands their delay tactics, their arguments for coverage exclusions, and their settlement strategies. In essence, we know their playbook because we used to run it. This invaluable insight allows us to anticipate their moves and aggressively counter their defenses.

• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions: Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/), has a proven track record of taking on formidable defendants. He was one of the few Texas attorneys involved in complex litigation stemming from the BP Texas City explosion, a case against a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Our experience in federal court (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, large universities, or their well-funded defense teams. We’ve taken on billion-dollar corporations and won significant results; we know how to fight powerful defendants.

• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death & Catastrophic Injury Experience: Our firm has a proven track record in obtaining multi-million-dollar results in complex wrongful death (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/wrongful-death-claim-lawyer/) and catastrophic injury cases. We work with leading economists and medical experts to meticulously calculate lifetime care needs for victims of severe brain injuries, organ damage, or permanent disabilities resulting from hazing. We don’t settle cheap; we build cases that force accountability and fully compensate for the profound losses our clients endure.

• Dual Criminal + Civil Hazing Expertise: Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) underscores our understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/). This dual perspective allows us to advise clients, witnesses, or even former members on legal strategies that consider both criminal exposure and civil liability exposure.

• Investigative Depth: We commit to aggressive and thorough investigation. This includes leveraging digital forensics experts to recover deleted group chats, texts, and social media evidence, as well as issuing subpoenas for national fraternity records showing prior incidents and uncovering university files through discovery and public records requests. Our network of medical experts, economists, and psychologists helps us build an unassailable case. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.

We intimately understand how fraternities, sororities, Corps programs, and athletic departments operate, including their unspoken rules and cover-up mechanisms. Our approach is not about bravado or quick settlements; it’s about meticulous investigation, expert legal analysis, and compassionate advocacy. We know this is one of the hardest things a family can face, and our job is to get you answers, hold the responsible parties accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family.

Contact Attorney911 Today

If your child has experienced hazing at any Texas campus, from the University of Houston to Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, Baylor, or elsewhere, we want to hear from you. Families in Crane County and throughout the surrounding region have the right to answers and accountability.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We’ll listen to what happened without judgment, explain your legal options, and help you decide on the best path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We’ll listen to your story without judgment.
• We’ll review any evidence you have, such as photos, texts, or medical records.
• We’ll explain your legal options: a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither.
• We’ll discuss realistic timelines and what to expect throughout the process.
• We’ll answer your questions about costs. We operate on a contingency fee basis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc), meaning we don’t get paid unless we win your case.
• There’s no pressure to hire us on the spot—take the time you need to decide.
• Everything you tell us is confidential.

Don’t let valuable time pass. Evidence disappears rapidly, and organizations move quickly to protect themselves. By consulting with us promptly, you can ensure that your child’s rights are protected and that a thorough investigation can begin. Watch our video on client mistakes that can ruin your case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY

Our Contact Information:

• Call our Emergency Hotline: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
• Direct Line: (713) 528-9070
• Cell: (713) 443-4781
• Website: https://attorney911.com
• Email: ralph@atty911.com

Spanish-Language Services:

• Hablamos Español – Contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for a confidential consultation in Spanish. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Whether you’re in Crane County or anywhere across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Call us today. We are the Legal Emergency Lawyers™.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC.

Hazing laws, university policies, and legal precedents can change. The information in this guide is current as of late 2025 but may not reflect the most recent developments. Every hazing case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and many other factors.

If you or your child has been affected by hazing, we strongly encourage you to consult with a qualified Texas attorney who can review your specific situation, explain your legal rights, and advise you on the best course of action for your family.

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911
Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, Texas
Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Direct: (713) 528-9070 | Cell: (713) 443-4781
Website: https://attorney911.com
Email: ralph@atty911.com