Jeffrey D. Busby, Andrea Busby, and Busby Quarter Horse, L.L.C. v. Josh Harvey, DVM, and Outlaw Equine, L.L.C., 551 S.W.3d 184

Plaintiffs (Jeffrey and Andrea Busby and Busby Quarter Horse, LLC) sued veterinarian Dr. Josh Harvey and Outlaw Equine, LLC for negligence and veterinary malpractice after treatment allegedly ruined their horse Daisy’s racing and breeding value. Plaintiffs later nonsuited some claims and tried negligence/malpractice to a jury.
Defense counsel William H. Chamblee later appeared for defendants; plaintiffs moved to disqualify him, alleging he had previously received confidential information from Jeff Busby during a pre-suit call in which Chamblee recommended an expert (Dr. Craig Roberts).
Plaintiffs claimed Chamblee’s prior contact gave him confidential insider knowledge and that Chamblee later attacked the plaintiffs’ expert at trial using that information; they asked the court to disqualify him or, at minimum, disclose the referral to the jury.
At the disqualification hearing Chamblee said the contact was limited: a mutual acquaintance referred Busby to him to get an expert name, Chamblee texted a name/number, and he never provided legal advice or became Busby’s attorney; Busby testified the conversation was broader.
The trial court denied the disqualification motion (no explicit findings). The jury found no proximate negligence by Dr. Harvey and returned a take-nothing verdict. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of disqualification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to disqualify defense counsel	Chamblee received confidential case details from Busby, recommended Dr. Roberts, then used that insider knowledge at trial to attack plaintiffs’ expert — disqualification required	The pre-appearance contact was casual, non-confidential, limited to an expert name; plaintiffs suffered no actual prejudice and Chamblee did not rely on any confidential strategy or work product	No abuse of discretion: plaintiffs failed to show actual prejudice from Chamblee’s limited pre-appearance contact; disqualification denied
Whether disclosure of Chamblee’s referral to the jury was improperly limited by the court	Plaintiffs sought to show jury that Chamblee referred their expert to establish potential bias/connection	Defendants urged trial rulings preserved no reversible error; the jury already heard that Roberts had worked for defense counsel and plaintiffs failed to preserve other objections	No reversible error: the record shows the jury heard Roberts had worked for defense counsel; plaintiffs failed to preserve further complaint

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 881 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. 1994) (standard: appellate review of disqualification is abuse of discretion)
In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) (movant must show actual prejudice to warrant disqualification)
In re Meador, 968 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. 1998) (requirement that disqualification be tied to actual prejudice)
In re RSR Corp., 475 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. 2015) (disqualification is a severe remedy)
Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Godbey, 924 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. 1996) (disciplinary rules provide guidance but do not alone determine disqualification)
Bahn v. [unnamed], 13 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (movant bears burden to show prejudice before disqualification is ordered)