Opinion
13-24-00231-CV
06-06-2024
VINCENT KRUSSOW Appellant, v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAIME TIJERINA, JUSTICE
On August 2, 2023, acting pro se, Vincent Krussow appealed a judgment rendered against Robert G. Vela. The matter involves a complaint about Robert Vela that Krussow made to the Commission of Lawyer Discipline.
Robert Vela appeals the Commission's decision for sanctions in a separate appeal.
On February 6, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified Krussow that he does not have standing as a party to this appeal. See Daniels v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 142 S.W.3d 565, 571 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (providing that a complainant in a lawyer disciplinary hearing is a potential witness and not a party).; In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex. 2006) (providing that only parties of record may appeal a trial court's judgment); see also Tex. R. App. P. 25.1. We further notified Krussow that unless he filed a brief demonstrating standing within twenty days from the date of receipt of our letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Krussow has not responded to our letter.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1 (allowing only parties to appeal a trial court's judgment). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained. See id. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).
Krussow's motion for extension of time to file brief is DENIED. Krussow's motion to issue subpoena duces tecum to obtain pertinent documents is DENIED.