Laurie Ray Hamlett v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 07-16-00256-CV

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline sued attorney Laurie Ray Hamlett for professional misconduct, alleging violations of Texas Disciplinary Rules 3.01, 3.02, 3.04(d), and 8.02(a) based on motions she filed in municipal courts.
Hamlett denied the allegations; the Commission moved for partial summary judgment which was denied.
Bench trial was held; the trial court found Hamlett violated Rules 3.01, 3.02, and 8.02(a) and publicly reprimanded her.
Hamlett timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law under Tex. R. Civ. P. 296; the trial court did not file any findings despite notice under Rule 297.
Hamlett appealed and moved to abate and remand so the trial court would issue the requested findings; one anticipated appellate issue is sufficiency of the evidence.
The appellate court reviewed the record, found factual disputes and that the trial court’s reasons were not apparent, and granted Hamlett’s unopposed motion: abating the appeal and remanding for findings and conclusions to be filed by a set date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court’s failure to file requested findings and conclusions requires abatement/remand	Hamlett: trial court must file findings when requested; absence prevents meaningful sufficiency review	Commission: (implicit) findings unnecessary if record shows reasons or facts undisputed	Court: Failure to file is harmful unless record shows no harm; here facts disputed and reasons not apparent — abate and remand
Whether facts were undisputed so findings unnecessary	Hamlett: factual disputes exist, so findings are needed	Commission: (implicit) might argue facts or legal issues resolved as matter of law	Court: Facts are disputed; Barker and related authority show findings required when disputes exist
Whether reasons for judgment are apparent from record (harmlessness)	Hamlett: record does not make reasons obvious; presumption of harm stands	Commission: (implicit) would need to show reasons clear to rebut harm presumption	Court: Reasons not apparent; presumption of harm not rebutted
Appropriate remedy for failure to issue findings	Hamlett: abate appeal and remand for findings	Commission: (implicit) alternative remedies or no remand if harmless	Court: Abatement and remand under Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; require supplemental clerk's record with findings by deadline

Nev. Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Andrews Indep. Sch. Dist., 225 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2005) (trial court must file findings when properly requested)
Willms v. Ams. Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2006) (purpose of Rule 296 is to provide findings after a conventional bench trial)
Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1996) (failure to file findings is presumed harmful unless record shows no harm)
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1989) (same presumption of harm rule)
Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2006) (findings not necessary when matters are undisputed)
Rollins v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 219 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (no need for findings when record shows no factual dispute and reasons are clear)
Lubbock Cty Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Contrarez, 102 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2003) (no abatement required when record indicates no factual dispute)
Sheldon Pollack Corp. v. Pioneer Concrete of Tex., Inc., 765 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1989) (harm test asks whether appellant would have to guess reasons for adverse ruling)
Acad. Corp. v. Interior Buildout & Turnkey Constr., Inc., 21 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (remedy for harmful failure is abatement and remand under appellate rule)