Copyright © 2025 Looney Smith Conrad & Hefti, P.C. All rights reserved. The site is designed by JSBC Marketing.
Looney Smith Conrad & Hefti
A candid conversation with Paul, Wade, and Matthew about why they became criminal defense lawyers, the cases that shaped them, the mentors who influenced them, the people whose lives they have changed, and the team culture that defines their practice.
THE VETERAN TRIAL LAWYER
PATH IN: Wanted to be a criminal lawyer from childhood after watching Perry Mason.
STYLE: Aggressive, instinctive, passionate, and relentlessly focused on winning.
WHAT DRIVES HIM: Helping clients beyond the courtroom—especially young people and people struggling with addiction—change the direction of their lives.
“This is the only job that ever really fit me.”
THE COURTROOM FIGHTER
PATH IN: Drawn to criminal defense early because he wanted to stand up for the little guy and hated bullies.
STYLE: Smooth, methodical, precise, positive, and relentless in the courtroom.
WHAT DRIVES HIM: Finding paths to success for clients, even when the circumstances seem stacked against them.
“When I walked into a criminal courtroom for the first time, I just remember feeling like I was at home.”
THE STRATEGIST & WRITER
PATH IN:After facing serious criminal charges himself following an explosives-range accident during his military service, his own defense attorneys inspired him to attend law school.
STYLE:Research-driven, analytical, principled, empathetic, and exceptionally strong in legal writing.
WHAT DRIVES HIM:Doing for other people what his own criminal defense attorneys once did for him.
“My own criminal defense attorneys basically saved my life and my future.”
ORIGINS & OUTLOOK
Their answers reveal three very different routes into criminal defense, but a shared belief that every client deserves humanity, serious advocacy, and a defense lawyer willing to fight.
PAUL:
Paul says criminal defense was one of only two things he ever wanted to do. Watching Perry Mason as a child planted the idea when he was six or seven years old. He tried other jobs, but nothing else ever fit.
WADE:
Wade began talking about becoming a lawyer around junior high or high school. He was fascinated by criminal defense lawyers and liked the idea of standing up for the little guy. When he eventually entered a criminal courtroom, he felt like he was exactly where he belonged.
MATTHEW:
Matthew’s path was deeply personal. During his previous career as an explosive ordnance disposal technician in the military, an accident during his fourth combat tour resulted in the death of a fellow airman and serious injuries to another soldier. Matthew and his teammates were later charged with manslaughter and other serious crimes.
His defense attorneys protected his life and future. That experience sent him to law school because he wanted to provide others with the same kind of advocacy.
PAUL:
Paul says guilt does not eliminate someone’s humanity. He does not want clients to reoffend and actively tries to help them change their mindset and become positive contributors to society—but he also believes strongly that incarceration should never strip people of basic human dignity.
WADE:
Wade says he does not care whether someone is guilty or innocent when deciding whether that person deserves a defense.
Everyone has done something wrong, he says, and no person should be judged entirely by the worst thing they have ever done.
MATTHEW:
Matthew adds another perspective: the constitutional rights enjoyed by innocent people survive because criminal defense lawyers protect those freedoms every day—including when representing people accused of serious crimes.
Paul also points out that the justice system itself requires competent defense counsel. Without a real defense, there cannot be a legitimate conviction.
CASES THEY REMEMBER
Their most memorable cases are not simply courtroom victories. Each became a lesson about preparation, persistence, freedom, and the human consequences of practicing criminal law.
Paul’s most memorable case is actually a loss.
Larry Gross was approximately 55 years old and faced a minimum 25-year sentence if convicted because of his status as a habitual offender. He was accused of breaking into a government office and stealing a typewriter.
Paul believed the case was winnable.
But Gross was convicted.
Afterward, Paul sat with him in the courtroom jail cell, and the two cried together for 15 or 20 minutes.
Paul says the experience forced him to confront the fact that his trial skills had not yet reached the level they needed to be. Gross suffered the consequences of that loss—not Paul.
The case drove Paul to pursue advanced trial training around the country and ultimately transformed the way he tried cases.
“He paid the consequences; I didn’t. I’ll never forget that case.”
Wade remembers representing a young man accused of murdering a police officer.
The case received enormous media attention. From the beginning, however, the defense maintained that the killing was self-defense.
The trial then took an extraordinary turn.
After a juror became sick, proceedings recessed. Paul subsequently became ill, and Wade was forced to continue the case without him after an approximately three-month break—with the same jury.
Wade tried the case.
The defense won on self-defense.
When Wade spoke with jurors afterward, they said they viewed what happened not simply as the killing of a police officer, but as a road-rage confrontation between two citizens.
The case received national attention, and Wade says lawyers from other states contacted him asking how the result had been achieved.
“That was probably the case that put me on the map.”
One of Matthew’s most memorable cases involved a maintenance employee accused of a serious attempted sexual assault.
The identification evidence was deeply problematic.
Their client had not been identified in the first two lineups. Only after a third procedure involving a COVID-era photograph showing part of his face did the identification begin to shift toward him.
Matthew and Wade extensively researched and challenged the eyewitness-identification procedures.
At trial, the complainant failed to identify their client in the courtroom.
The defense moved for a directed verdict—and won.
Even when the judge gave the prosecution an opportunity to reopen its case, the prosecutor declined.
The not-guilty result stood.
Their client had spent more than three years living under the weight of the accusation. Wade remembers that he rarely smiled during those years.
Afterward, he seemed like a different person.
“We got the right result, which was a not guilty verdict.”
MENTORS & INFLUENCE
PAUL
Paul admits that early in his career he was often too proud to ask for help.
His formal mentors largely came from intensive trial-skills training, although he also closely studied respected attorneys throughout his career.
And then there was his earliest mentor:
Perry Mason.
Paul says he watched the television episodes repeatedly and even memorized dialogue.
WADE
Wade took almost the opposite approach.
He actively sought mentorship and participated in a training program connected with the Harris County Public Defender’s Office and Gideon’s Promise.
At one point, he was assigned ten established Houston-area mentors.
Later, Paul and Clay became important mentors as well.
MATTHEW
Matthew believes mentors do not necessarily have to be significantly older or more experienced.
He continues learning from Paul and Wade while also crediting numerous attorneys and professors who influenced him through law school, criminal defense, innocence work, capital defense, appeals, and post-conviction practice.
“I can never get enough mentorship.”
LIVES CHANGED
WADE
Wade returns to the client from the wrongful-identification case.
During the roughly three years they represented him, Wade rarely remembers seeing the man smile.
After the acquittal, everything changed.
Wade believes they gave him his life back.
Interestingly, Wade says the case may also have changed the prosecutor. The prosecutor eventually left that side of the courtroom and became a criminal defense attorney himself.
MATTHEW
Matthew remembers a murder case involving a father whose young daughter was named Heaven.
During a retrial, the defense received late-disclosed exculpatory evidence supporting its alternate-suspect theory.
The case was dismissed in the middle of trial.
The father went home.
His daughter had been only three years old, and the charges had hung over the family for her entire life.
Because her father came home, Matthew says she never had to grow up knowing a life without him.
PAUL
For Paul, there is no single person.
There are hundreds.
He says young people and people struggling with addiction have always become special projects for him. He pushes them to confront what they are doing to themselves and the people around them.
Of everything he has accomplished, he says helping those people turn their lives around may be what makes him proudest.
Not the winning streak.
Not acclaim.
Not money.
“That’s probably my finest achievement.”
INSIDE THE FIRM
WADE ON PAUL
“He is incredibly stubborn and such a fighter, but also just a walking contradiction most of the time.”
Wade says Paul’s creativity is one of his greatest strengths. He approaches legal arguments and defenses differently from most criminal defense lawyers and always seems to have another idea when everyone else thinks the options have been exhausted.
Wade’s description:
The wily, cagey old fox.
MATTHEW ON PAUL
Matthew sees something underneath Paul’s courtroom personality:
Paul loves people.
He fights intensely for clients in court, but that concern also extends to counseling clients and caring for the people who work inside the firm.
“He loves people. He fights like hell for them.”
PAUL ON WADE
Paul describes Wade almost like family.
He says Wade is good and decent at his core while possessing the instincts of a fighter.
“If I had a son and I wanted to cookie cutter that son, I would use Wade as the prototype.”
MATTHEW ON WADE
Matthew calls Wade a dear friend, a good listener, and someone who remains relentlessly positive about what can be accomplished for clients.
In court, he describes Wade as:
Smooth. Methodical. Precise. Relentless.
PAUL ON MATTHEW
Paul’s description starts simply:
“He’s the smartest guy in the room, in any room he is in.”
Paul praises Matthew’s intelligence, integrity, principles, and ability to handle extraordinarily complex legal work.
After Clay’s retirement approached, Paul says the firm searched for two years for the right person.
They eventually found Matthew.
WADE ON MATTHEW
Wade also calls Matthew brilliant and says his legal writing is unmatched.
But intelligence is only part of it.
Matthew’s military background contributes to his team mentality, while his humility and genuine concern for people influence how he treats clients—even people who ultimately do not hire the firm.
OUTSIDE THE LAW
WADE
Possibly something involving automotive design or the automotive industry—although he is happy keeping cars as a hobby and “mild obsession.”
MATTHEW
Travel to small music venues, playing guitar and singing.
PAUL
He once considered becoming a professional counselor or therapist because so much of his work already involved helping damaged people address their past and build better lives.
LOOKING FORWARD
PAUL
Ten years out
Still practicing criminal defense.
In fact, Paul says he intends to successfully try a jury case at or above age 100.
WADE
Ten years out
Doing exactly what he is doing today—just at a higher level.
MATTHEW
Ten years out
Doing the same thing, but doing it better.
Paul adds one condition: “He’s not allowed to leave, so it has to be doing it here.”
Richard’s remark during closing, Smith, Conrad & Hefti’s “the boss,” was recently named one of Houston’s Top Attorneys.
THE CLOSING MESSAGE
PAUL
Paul believes one thing distinguishes their practice:
Every case belongs to the team.
There is no mentality of:
“That’s my client.”
Instead:
Every client is everyone’s responsibility.
WADE
Wade believes their different backgrounds make that approach even stronger. Their individual experiences cause them to see cases differently, allowing one attorney’s idea to become the starting point for another attorney’s strategy.
The result can be unconventional solutions that one lawyer working alone might never have considered.
MATTHEW
Matthew adds one final distinction:
They are not only good at talking.
They listen.
When a potential client walks through the door, they want to understand that person’s story, circumstances, and what makes that individual who they are.
Paul closes with the competitive philosophy behind it all:
Copyright © 2025 Looney Smith Conrad & Hefti, P.C. All rights reserved. The site is designed by JSBC Marketing.