In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562

Background

During a 2011 criminal trial, Judge Steve Smith found attorney Theresa Caballero in contempt; the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a disciplinary petition based on that contempt.
Caballero elected district-court adjudication; the Commission moved for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel from the contempt finding, seeking judgment on misconduct under specific disciplinary rules.
The parties negotiated and signed a written agreed judgment (purported Rule 11 settlement) suspending Caballero’s license for nine months (fully probated) and awarding $1,000 in fees; the proposed agreed judgment was presented to the trial judge.
The trial judge refused to sign the agreed judgment (without stated reason), later granted the Commission’s motion for partial summary judgment finding misconduct, and proceeded to determine sanctions.
Caballero sought mandamus relief arguing the judge had a ministerial duty to enter the signed Rule 11 agreed judgment; the Commission argued it had withdrawn consent and the court retained discretion to reject the settlement in a disciplinary action.
The majority held the judge abused his discretion by refusing to enforce the Rule 11 agreed judgment and conditioned mandamus relief; a dissent argued the judge properly exercised discretion under disciplinary rules requiring the court to determine sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the parties’ agreement as a Rule 11 settlement	Agreed judgment was written, signed, and presented to the court; thus a valid Rule 11 agreement	Commission questioned timing of filing but did not effectively withdraw consent before court refused to sign	Court: Agreement was a valid Rule 11 settlement when the judge refused to sign
Whether Commission withdrew consent before judgment	Caballero: Commission did not withdraw consent prior to the court’s refusal to sign	Commission: It later withdrew consent, relying on changed circumstances	Court: Commission’s withdrawal came too late and was ineffective prior to the court’s action
Enforceability given lapse of proposed suspension dates	Caballero: Timeframe was not a material term; nine-month probated suspension remains enforceable	Commission: Starting date passed, making performance impossible or material term unmet	Court: Time was not shown to be of the essence; substantive terms (nine-month probated suspension, $1,000 fees) are enforceable
Whether trial court may reject a Rule 11 settlement in disciplinary proceedings	Caballero: Trial court had no discretion to reject a valid Rule 11 agreement; ministerial duty to sign	Commission / Dissent: Disciplinary rules (Rules 3.09/3.10) require the court to determine sanctions; judge has broad discretion to accept or reject proposed sanctions	Court (majority): Trial court had a ministerial duty to enforce the valid Rule 11 agreement; mandamus conditionally granted. Dissent: Judge acted within discretion to decline entry and to assess sanctions himself.

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standards; adequacy of appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mandamus)
Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2007) (trial court’s ministerial duty to enforce valid Rule 11 agreements)
EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1996) (enforcement of settlement agreements under Rule 11)
Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11 filing and enforceability principles)
State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1994) (trial court’s broad discretion to determine sanctions in disciplinary cases)
Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1983) (party may revoke consent to settlement before rendition of judgment)
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 209 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 2006) (settlement-judgment must reflect terms recited; courts may not alter material terms)