In re Turner, 542 S.W.3d 553

Vethan Law Firm sued Christina Lopez; Cweren represented Lopez. Vethan then hired paralegal Jeaneal Wright and assigned her to the Turner matter; Wright reviewed confidential materials, communicated with client, drafted documents, and attended strategy meetings for ~6 weeks.
Eight months later Cweren hired Wright; her resume omitted prior Vethan employment and Cweren did not instruct her at hire to avoid matters she had worked on previously.
Wright performed clerical work on the Turner matter at Cweren; Vethan discovered her initials on opposing counsel documents and moved to disqualify Cweren.
After notice, Cweren barred Wright from Turner files, instructed her not to discuss the case, and reassigned responsibilities, but only after learning of the conflict.
Trial court denied disqualification; the court of appeals denied mandamus relief. Vethan sought mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court, which reviews disqualification refusals for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vethan)	Defendant's Argument (Cweren)	Held
Whether Cweren must be disqualified for hiring a former opposing-firm paralegal who worked on the Turner matter	Hiring Wright creates an irrebuttable presumption she obtained confidences and thus requires disqualification	Post-hire remedial measures (screening, reassignment) were sufficient to avoid disqualification	Court granted mandamus: trial court abused discretion and Cweren must be disqualified
Whether Cweren rebutted the presumption that Wright shared confidential information with her new firm	Vethan argued the shared-confidences presumption is irrebuttable or unrebutted because Cweren failed to instruct Wright before she worked on the matter	Cweren argued its later instructions and screening measures sufficed under Phoenix Founders factors	Court held Cweren failed to meet the required pre-hire instruction prong; later screening was too late, so presumption stands and disqualification is required

Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. Barnett, 320 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2010) (two-step test and presumption rules for nonlawyer conflicts)
Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall, 887 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. 1994) (factors to evaluate effectiveness of screening measures)
In re Am. Home Prods. Corp., 985 S.W.2d 68 (Tex. 1998) (irrebuttable presumption that legal assistant who worked on matter received confidential information)
In re Guaranty Ins. Serv., 343 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. 2011) (application of screening and presumption framework)
Grant v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 888 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. 1994) (disqualification based on genuine threat of disclosure rather than actual disclosure)