In Re Tips
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 10206
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Tips filed a writ of mandamus on Oct 15, 2010 to challenge a Sep 30, 2010 order disqualifying counsel A.L. Hernden.
- Underlying case is a divorce and a suit affecting the parent-child relationship between Tips and Carl Wayne Tips.
- Feb 5, 2010 hearing discussed alleged gifts (watches) and related conduct by Hernden toward the children.
- Sept 9, 2010 Carl filed a Rule 3.08 displacement motion asserting Hernden may be a fact witness.
- Sept 22, 2010 hearing and Sept 30, 2010 order granted the disqualification, prompting the mandamus petition.
- The appellate court conditionally grants mandamus, reversing the disqualification order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disqualification order complied with Rule 3.08. | Tips argues Carl failed to show Hernden’s testimony is essential. | Carl argues dual roles and potential testimony justify disqualification. | Disqualification improper; no essential-testimony need shown. |
| Whether actual prejudice was shown from dual roles. | Tips asserts no actual prejudice shown by dual roles. | Carl contends dual roles cause prejudice. | No actual prejudice demonstrated; abuse of discretion. |
| Whether any Rule 3.08 exceptions apply. | No applicable exception supports disqualification. | Rule 3.08 exceptions may apply if criteria satisfied. | None of the exceptions satisfied. |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to correct the erroneous order. | Mandamus is proper where there is no adequate appellate remedy. | Not necessary; other remedies exist. | Mandamus relief conditionally granted; order to withdraw disqualification. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.2004) (mandamus standard; disqualification requires specific showing)
- In re Sandoval, 308 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009) (orig.proceeding; cautions against using disqualification as tactic)
- Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 797 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.1990) (disqualification standard for trial court review)
- Ayres v. Canales, 790 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.1990) (need for showing actual prejudice)
- Int. of A.M., 974 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) (testimony necessity and prejudice considerations)