Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00177-CV
10-12-2017
IN RE JAMES R. HARRIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SOUTH BAY CORPORATION AND LAMB OIL & GAS, INC., SOUTH BAY CORPORATION, AND LAMB OIL & GAS, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Relators James R. Harris, in his capacity as President and Chairman of the Board of South Bay Corporation and Lamb Oil & Gas, Inc., South Bay Corporation, and Lamb Oil & Gas, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying their counsel in the underlying case. This Court requested and received a response to the petition from real parties in interest Jeffery Scott Harris, William Harris, Christiana Harris, Frances Harris, and Andrew Harris and a reply thereto from relators. This Court also received a supplemental response from real party Suzette Harris and a reply thereto from relators. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). Similarly, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). In determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, the appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. In re M-I L.L.C., 505 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Further, an appellate court may not deal with disputed areas of fact in an original mandamus proceeding. In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473, 478 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding). If the record contains legally sufficient evidence both against and in support of the trial court's decision then mandamus will not lie because weighing conflicting evidence is a trial court function. In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 686 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)) (orig. proceeding). As applicable to this original proceeding, it is well established that, if the trial court has abused its discretion in ruling on a motion to disqualify counsel, mandamus is appropriate to correct the trial court's erroneous ruling because there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41, 52 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the supplemental response, the replies, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Disqualification of a party's counsel is a severe remedy and there are numerous reasons why such motions are not granted liberally. See In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d 819, 825 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). Disqualification can result in immediate and palpable harm, disrupt trial court proceedings, and deprive a party of the right to have its counsel of choice. See In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). However, in certain extraordinary circumstances, important policy considerations compel disqualification to protect the integrity of the trial process and judicial system as a whole. See In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d at 826. This original proceeding represents one such case because the attorneys involved would otherwise serve as witnesses, parties, and counsel providing testimony regarding the necessary and essential facts of the case, and the myriad roles served would cause confusion and prejudice. Accordingly, after applying an exacting standard for reviewing the disqualification order, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice Delivered and filed the 12th day of October, 2017.