*1 bills, jury knew what medical and that the PUBLISHING, Zimmerman
the medical bills were because AMERICA re NEWS INC., they Garibay’s Eugene to what were. coun- testified M. McKeown Shaffar, urged jury limit sel themselves Relators. Sandra S. said, jury charge “Mr.
what the not to Gold- 04-96-00810-CV. No. argument” plaintiffs man’s bizarre that the Texas, Appeals compensated should not be because Zimmer- Court Antonio. the lan- San man sent a letter. The absence of guage qualifying charge medical care 11, March 1998. countering prevented Rivas’s counsel from July Rehearing 1998. Overruled jury only damages for that the could award expenses necessary reasonable medical jury
care because the was instructed
they required jury charge were follow upon
and deliberate their answers to the Therefore,
questions that were asked. closing argument by Garibay’s
view of the requiring
counsel and the instructions
jury jury charge ques- to follow the and the asked,
tions we that the to in- hold failure charge qualifying languаge
clude the in the
resulted in harm to Rivas.1
Conclusion point
We sustain Rivas’s first of error.2 reversed, judgment trial court is
and the cause remanded to the trial court
for a new trial. merely notations jury’s verdict handwritten nota The Court reasons that such
1. The contains indicating damages arriving jury’s process tions that the total awarded mental reflect for each of the claimants consisted of the amount jury which is irrelevant. Id. If the their verdict following expenses plus of their medical specific amounts as to had been asked to assess anguish: physical pain and mental amounts charge, damages jury in the each element of $10,000; (1) (2) Garibay $7,500; Rosandra — only — jury result would be different. Since $10,000. (3) From these nota Jennifer — amount, damage reached a verdict as to totаl tions, might tempted argue appellees be ignore the we must follow Thomas and judgment that we could affirm the as to the marginal notations. See id. damages physical pain awarded for and mental However, Supreme anguish. Court the Texas points reach Rivas’s other because We do not expressly marginal held that notes cannot they necessary our to the rendition of are not part jury’s verdict. Thomas considered as judgment. Oldham, (Tex.1995). 895 S.W.2d 359-60 *2 Landreth, principal owner and Ron USSI), plain- (collectively companies two below, seeking damages breach are tiffs and tortious interference with of contract Priest, The Hon. Pat sit- business relations. *3 visiting judge for the Hon. Michael ting as a Peden, permanent judge of the 285th District Court, a motion for sanctions which denied requested plaintiffs’ counsel defendants disqualified professional for violation 4.02(a). conditionally responsibility We rule the trial court to re- grant a writ to order previous grant order and relator’s scind its motion for sanctions.
Background provide to com- was under contract USSI puter services to News America software Frazier, Publishing, Inc. Don the former USSI, president of and McKeown and Shaf- fer, presidents at former vice of USSI and America, to News were one time consultants with News America named as co-defendants alleging and in a suit brеach of contract with relations. tortious interference business represented by All defendants were counsel. nonsuited Don Frazier. When USSI remaining deposed USSI’s own- defendants Landreth, er/corporate representative, Ron Cannan, Green, Ladon, Lang, Mark J. day just they that on the same and learned Fisher, P.C., Antonio, Coughlan & for San nonsuit, prior to the defendant Don Frazier appellant. private meeting plaintiff Landreth had Holland, Foster, Michael L. Kil- Heller & attorneys the law plaintiffs’ and one of P.C., Macon, gore, R. Laurence Karen Strauss, Akin, Gump, Hauer & offices of Guide, Simmons, Stephan Kroesche Rebecca Feld, (Akin, Gump). meeting was L.L.P Akin, Strauss, Hauer, Rogers, Gump, B. response “in to” Frazier’s letter to them Feld, Antonio, L.L.P., appellee. for San stating he wanted to meet with them without attorney present his and discuss the lawsuit. It also stated that: meeting you, I Prior to decided OPINION my representation by Mark terminate LÓPEZ, Justice. Therefore, hereby I state that I Cannan. any attorney longer represented by am no Appellant’s rehearing motion for is denied. matter, I to be in this do not desire 21, 1997, opinion, May is with- Our issued in connection with represented counsel drawn and this is substituted. attorney [plaintiffs’ my discussions with anti- original proceeding This involves the Landreth, Guide], Ron Kroesche Karen person contact rule known to be betweеn attorneys for Plaintiffs opposing counsel and an this case. are the defendants in a Relators counsel. meeting, System Shortly USSI decided parties, Real Users Ser- after lawsuit. time, Inc., Services, Frazier had vices, Frazier. At that Computer Inc. nonsuit USSI engage discussions without his not communicated to Ms that their wishes relationship lawyer present, repre- was terminated. is he “former” still meeting or No notice of this communication within the context of DR sented counsel given to or for 4.02(a) Frazier’s counsel counsel conveyed until he has this decision to produced co-defendants until it was seven lawyer? subpoena in response later duces months Ron tecum served on Landreth. One month Rule 4.02 that, supplemental after USSI filed answers or encour- A should orchestrate designated interrogatories in which it Don client age contact between herself her expert as one of their witnesses. represented by opposing party who is seeMng Relators filed motion sanctions opposing has con- counsel unless Akin, Gump disqualify for violations of *4 pro- The ethical sented to such contact.2 supported by Rule 4.02. The motion was well es- scription to such communication is deposition of excerpts plaintiff from the oral version, tablished.3 The current Texas Rule Landreth, May 12, copy of 1995 Ron a the 4.02(a), relatively unchanged pre- from its is opposing from Frazi- letter to counsel Guide decessor, 7-104(A)(l), er, which is intended of DR and Frazier’s hand-written statement client-lawyer integrity the preserve the same date which referenced an attached the of “to type-written memo from Frazier to one Jeff relationship by protecting the counsel, Gump, Akin not Leist. USSI’s did superior and skill party knowledge from the evidence, however, any present additional opposing lawyer.” Robert P. Schu- of the presented argument to the parties both oral Sutton, Jr., A F. to the and John Guide werk trial trial denied mo- court.1 The court the Disciplinary Texas Rules of Professional sought tion аnd relators mandamus relief. (1990). 1, Conduct, 351 27A Houston L.Rev. influ- plaintiffs’ protected claim that acted from the Relators counsel A is to be 4.02(a) DR and violation of in total clear of counsel’s “calculated and opposing ences disregard procedural of rules 8 and 10. The self-serving as from approaches” as well impression in appears issue to be one of first “misguided well-intended communica- but its Texas: Did trial court abuse discre- Id. tions.” at 351-52. denying disqualify plain- tion in motion the rule Comment states pre- firm tiffs’ law under the circumstances (a) to circum “is directed at efforts section specifically, here. More when a client sented lawyer-client relationship existing vent a unilateral to counsel for makes statement organizations or enti persons, between other opposing party that he has terminated respective coun- government of and their attorney-client relationship Ms ties own disciplinary rehearing, rules cited pages to the current 1. 6 and 7 of its motion for References On summary "pertinent a of facts of the USSI recites shortened for the sake in this been record, by 4.02(a)” supported convenience, case as construed e.g., the more "Rule or of follows, What favor of trial court’s order.” 4.02(a).” traditional “DR however, merely summary argument is a of exception tо the trial court. With the of made Hoffman, by early treatise David 3.In deposition testimony, counsel one reference to stated, enter con- "I will never into author argument repeatedly only cites the state- client, my opponent’s relative to versation with hearing. from the ment of facts defense, consent, except with claim or presence 2 David and in the of his counsel." Disciplinary Rule Professional Con- Texas of Study A Legal Course Hoffman, Addressed 4.02(a) duct states: (2d Generally ed. Students the Profession client, lawyer representing not shall Leubsdorf, 1836), quoted in John Baltimore encourage another or cause or communicate Communicating Lawyer’s Client: with Another subject repre- to communicate about Interests, Lawyer's Client’s Veto and the entity person, organization or sentation with a Indeed, 683, (1979). L. 684 n. 6 U. Pa. lawyer repre- government to be knows Rev. always has endorsed American Bar Association lawyer regarding that sub- sented another every state in the Union rule and the anti-contact ject, lawyer the consent of the unless the has ABA adopted the ABAmodel. lawyer law so. some form of is authorized to do other or 4.02(a) (located Responsibili- .Disciplinary R. Prof. On Ethics and Professional Comm. Conduct Tex 2, Rules, (1995). Bar Tit. at Vol. State ty, Op. 95-396 Formal Gov't Code, Tex 9) (Vernon G, A, App. Supp.1996). art. subt. Disciplinary extrаordinary writ.” Walker late reversal R. Prof. Conduct sel.” Tex. Packer, 4.02(a) however, In National at 840. *5 Akin, provide Gump’s willingness to office alyzed two-prong a test: under space presence and the of a fell with (1) establish that a reason- movant must 2. acceptable in conditions of comment specifically iden- possibility that some able meeting place fact that took at the law the occurred; impropriety has tifiable attorney presence firm in the of a firm can (2) show that the likelihood movant must only encouragement interpreted as an of outweighs obloquy public suspicion or of prohibited are of the communication. We by served interests which will be the social opinion spirit requires that of this rule par- in a lawyer’s participation continued a lawyer to avoid such communica the ethical ticular case. litigation setting long tions in a for as when prejudices The court must balance that other not offi as counsel for Hess, 599 party involved. Shelton v. each cially representation. from withdrawn (S.D.Tex.1984).4 F.Supp.
The Standard of Review Hess, policeman campus a In v. Shelton employment discrimi- proceeding, named filed an In a mandamus relators Shelton University of Houston against nation must show that the district court’s refusal to suit individually university Gump in officials disqualify plaintiffs’ Akin counsel and several of at 906. One litigation wrongful termination. Id. pending was an clear abuse of for Miller, defendants, himself a former cam- adequate discretion for which there is no plain- with the remedy by appeal. pus policeman, Medical communicated See National he was attorney at a time when Enterprises Godbey, 924 128 tiff and his v. S.W.2d Packer, by university’s counsel. Id. (Tex.1996); represented 827 S.W.2d Walker week, (Tex.1992). Ins plaintiff amended court at 907. The next When a trial punitive damage claims drop legal prin- pleadings must make a determination of issue, university and added a controlling against has no Miller ciples an the court half and a party-defendant. Id. Two determining the law is or as a in what discretion later, “Thus, his counsel Miller informed facts. a months applying in the law to the attorney-gener- longer he no wanted the analyze that clear the trial court failure him, instructing them represent office to correctly al’s apply the law will constitute The next to withdraw. Id. discretion, appel- in to file a motion may result abuse of prejudice mation; of confidential infor- three-prong due to disclosures Eighth a test for 4. The Circuit has (3) 4.02, public's balancing interest in the scru- requiring evaluating of rule (1) justice. Id. This test pulous competing interest administration the client’s these interests: choice; (2) circum- may appropriate under оther be more being represented of its counsel party’s from stances. opposing interest in a trial free week, any represented plaintiff’s stipulation filed a contact with counsel individual dismissal, dropping from the suit. Id. Miller attorney person person’s unless that consents later, against in another Two months lawsuit apply, rule does not to the contact. This university notice pro he filed a se person when substitution, naming plaintiffs counsel as his seeking opinion a second from another law- short, attorney. In that appears it Shel- Id. R. Prof. yer. Tex. DISCIPLINARY Conduct disgrun- dealing with two ton’s was 4.02(d). campus policemen, tled former one whom case, lodged but was defеndant one opinion more Fifth Circuit In a recent against similar claims the other defendants rule, involving the lower anti-contact balancing In separate suit. See id. order of reversed court’s disbarment harm, the district court found defen- apply a the court failed to clear and because prejudiced these dants had been more See convincing evidentiary standard. In re disqualified plain- improper contacts and it (5th Cir.1992). Medrano, 101, 956 F.2d Id. The fact that tiffs counsel. at 910. proceedings, trial remand further On between Miller had initiated the connection on who initiated court was directed to focus opposing himself and counsel did militate attornеy or his the communications —the disqualification. against Id. at 911. The prosecu- criminal client’s in a counsel, co-defendant opposing in order court said that Fifth Circuit also appearance impropriety, should tion. Id. 103. The avoid have avoided form of direct affiliation produce expected the movant to evidence so, Having Miller. failed to do 4.02(d) exception seeking about negate the unfairly prejudiced. Id. were defendants it to be entitled to the a second were us, sought. Frazier letter is not think the the case before relief Id. We do draft- meeting day the same as the dated rule to Rule ers of this or the eommentor Akin, Gump оpposing party. Real might pro- imply meant to that counsel 4.02 *6 rely there is no parties on this letter to show opinion opposing party or a second to an vide procedural disciplinary violation of is an inherent con- party with whom there undisputed, that Mark rules. It is knowledge or interest without the flict of Cannan, attorney record in Frazier’s attorney. Frazier of his own was consent lawsuit, meeting or that was unaware of the always free to other counsel should seek his client had terminated his services. No sought counsel if he other disinterested have motion withdraw or substitute counsel was to representa- concerned about Cannan’s pursued by by someone on ever Frazier or Indeed, only that ethical contact tion. is his behalf. Akin, given Fra- Gump could or advice distinguish parties attempt to Shelton Real DR 4.03 the circumstances. See zier under First, ways. they in two from this situation cmt. 1. required not note that federal courts are analysis professional limit their conduct to sixty years, the American For more than rules, they free to look to a Texas rather are position that a Bar Association has taken they as see fit. national norm conduct may protections not accord- client waive factually Secondly, this case different from is responsibilities ed him ethical plaintiffs counsel was undis- where Shelton Comm, communicating ABA on lawyer. See conducting oppos- meetings with putedly Responsibility, For- and Professional Ethics represented by ing at a he was time (1934) (anti-contact rule 108 does Op. mal they that parties argue here counsel. Real protection). of its contemplate client’s waiver after he informed only met with Frazier in a more recent revisiting position its longer represented by that he was no them noted that a opinion, the Committee formal counsel. country continue number of courts across Represented Person prohibition When ethical to find that “because the Initiates the Contact part, the effective- designed, protect is rep- lawyer’s representation, ness of 4.02(a) prohibits lawyer from initi- Rule it.” ABA person may not waive through orchestrating another resented ating or even 103 attorney obli However, communicating Responsi Professional on Ethics and Comm. (1995). See, give advice temptation to e.g., gated Op.95-396 to resist bility, Formal 1, 1455, situation, than at cmt. other Lopez, 4 F.3d 1459 see id. v. in this United States th Cir.1993) (“the (9 obtain necessary unrepresented party for a trust to advise the attorney-client relationship is evis See Tex. Comm. independent successful counsel. (1989); Ethics, clandes Op. the client is lured into 461 cerated when Professional Tex. cmt.1; opposi lawyеr for the meetings tine with the 4.03 R. Prof. Conduct DISCIPLINARY result, communications Re tion. uncurbed Rodriguez, As & Nellermoe Professional parties have deleteri represented Compre could Litigator: A sponsibility and beyond the context ous effects well Rules Disciplinary to Texas hensive Guide Green, ”); People v. 405 443, 496 case.... 4.04, individual L.J. Through 28 St. 3.01 Mary’s (1979) (defen 448, 273, 274 Mich. N.W.2d (1997). time undisputed at the It willingness speak does “not excuse dant’s met with Landreth compliance the standard of Guide, party, an opposing Frazier was Karen 7-104(A)(l)”); prescribed by DR see conduct case pleadings on file were live there Batchelor, F.Supp. also United States him, attorney of record was and his against (E.D.Pa.1980); Mоrgan, 231 State v. after occurred The nonsuit Mark Cannan. (1982); 1064, Kan. 646 P.2d 1068-70 meeting. this (Utah Ford, 793 P.2d 401 n. State v. in its situation ABA addresses our The stated: App.1990). The Committee further follows: formal recognizes that not the committee While matter, a sensible course practical aAs allowing represented person waive generally communicating lawyer would pa- protection may be seen as the Rule’s repre- in fact the to confirm whether ternalistic, 4.2 re- it believes that Rule effectively dis- senting lawyer has been Reflecting quires that result. the concern lawyer might example, the charged. For represented person may not be in that the provide evidence thаt person to ask the position to make an waiver of informed dismissed. The communi- counsel, has been presence operates the Rule repre- contact the cating can also to reduce the likelihood of the directly determine senting lawyer person engaging in communications that the dis- informed of might ultimately prove harmful to her whether she has been lawyer may communicating by imposing charge. obli- cause a strict ethical *7 communicating lawyer. person that she gation on the to inform the also choose until further wish to communicate Comm, does not Re- ABA on Ethics and Professional lawyer. gets another he (1995). sponsibility, Op.95-396 Fоrmal Cit- ing Lopez, 4 F.3d at it is noted that to Comm, Professional Re- ABA on Ethics and rep- against communicating rule “[t]he (1995). It is Op.95-396 sponsibility, Formal parties fundamentally concerned resented is the communicat- that clear from this attorneys, the with the duties of not with to responsibility ing attorney has an ethical parties.” at 21 n. 49. rights of Id. representational the more to ascertain do litiga- ongoing in opposing counsel status of Lawyers’ Responsibilities Be- Ethical in this case. than what was done tion Decides to the Time a Client tween Time the and the Terminate Counsel Rules 8 & 10 Procedural Fact this Communicates Client that Counsel Cannan, counsel, entered Mark Relators’ in 1993 of Frаzier appearance on behalf an rep recognize person that We desig- rule Procedural 8 by filing an answer. rep by may terminate that counsel resented charge and “until attorney in nated him the occurs, commu this resentation. When by notice changed written designation is such lawyer communicate with nicating is free to ... parties said and- all other to the court person now-unrepresented within for charge responsible be attorney in shall Rule 4.03. See guidelines of Tex. DISCIPLIN (Vernon 1990). P. party.” Tex.R. Civ. as to such the suit ARY R. Prof. Conduct 4.03 (Vernon privileged in- position improper communication Supp.1996). It is relators’ prove is direct responsibility formation difficult to without that Cannan had that —and client, reasonably testimony it can had a from communicating that Guide plaintiffs corresponding responsibility implied a be virtue of the fact that as member of expert designated testifying him have as a agree. the bar to honor it. We their behalf. Further, procedural an under rule attorney’s representation acknowledging in While that com continues a court, phone upon courtesy required mon here a call pending until the written case substitution, motion, lawyers, the trial court seemed grants withdrawal or as between to unilater may At that a client is entitled the ease be. Tex.R. Civ. 10. indicate P least, requires ally go his talk to other very this that the attor fire rule decision, making his In such a ney knowledge that side on own. of record have actual have benefit of Frazier did not client has terminated their rela fact, Thus, be cir appears there a tionship. responsibilities did counsel. Cannan’s attorney-client respect a signed not end letter and cumvention when Akin, sanctity relationship. The of that relation Gump’s offices. handed it Guide filed, ship overemphasized: given, no cannot be No motion was notice no procedures signed. such are order When- it nothing to what is more central There public’s perception of ignored, the and trust sys- in the American to be a сlient means system correspondingly that, in the harmed. is justice having than to know tem of Thus, 4.02(a) where rule issue worry lawyer, the hired a client need litigation, ongoing comment course advantage of law- being taken about tempered procedural rule must training, yers, who special skills We, therefore, adopt rules 8 and repre- represent others. client’s Once position procedural ABA’s relative to these disclosed, lawyers all are on sentation is “if retained has entered an rules that counsel they deal with the client’s notice must matter, appearance in a whether civil or matters, repre- lawyer on ah' unless criminal, record, with аnd remains counsel of provides person’s lawyer otherwise. sented corresponding responsibilities, civil, communi criminal or Whether the matter cating lawyer may not communicate with the transactional, complaint a whether has withdrawn her person filed, until brought, a tax an indictment been Comm, ABA on Ethics and appearance.” agreement or an of sale audit commenced Op.95- Responsibility, Professional Formal party, a co- signed, whether adverse (1995).5 plaintiff, par- or a defendant or witness transaction, all clients who ticipant changed Clearly Frazier has sides this lawyers from the hired benefit should result, and, may personal avoid cаse may lawyer Nor protection Rule 4.2. undoubtedly exposure in the suit. That will non-lawyer agents by using avoid the rule remaining prejudice defendants cause *8 prohibited what the undertake attorney. shared the same Counsel who doing, by maintaining igno- studied from parties that Frazier dis- real has admitted by claiming representation, of rance the about the “ade- with her his concerns cussed the represented person initiated con- the representation.” attorney’s of This quacy tact. suggests itself a discussion of confiden- topic Comm, Further, Re- and Professional suggests he ABA on Ethics information. it tial (eon- (1995) Athough sponsibility, Op.95-396 attorney. Formal represented by an still similarly оpinion concluded er and Supreme ABA formal We that the Texas Court has note authority its upon opinions on numer- in case discre ABA as the trial court that abused relied See, e.g., v. Thirteenth occasions. Grant apply proper ous the standard when it tion failed 466, (Tex. Appeals, S.W.2d 467-68 Court 888 Conley, disqualification case. See in an of Marshall, Founders, 1994); 887 v. Brooks, Phoenix Inc. Lott, 948 v. S.W.2d Nichols Mach. Co. 831, (Tex.1994). also note We S.W.2d 834-35 1997, 345, orig. proceed (Tex.App. 349 — Dallas recently appeals of has that our sister court adopted ing). in anoth- standard of conduct set forth
105 currenee). Akin, legal the Gump jury. All of harm to should taken this will do have par- public and pаins give profession eyes notice to in of the immediate Mark Can- nan, per- carry through ticularly eyes and if in those citizens Frazier wanted decision, duty members forming with their as this he should en- civic been couraged cannot be cured on give jury advance notice in this This to Cannan ease. Enterp., 924 sought Medical appeal. and substitution of counsel. anti- See National The courtesy, contact rule is more than common at 133. S.W.2d professional requirement it is a imposed to reasons, conditionally grant For these we client, indeed,
protect parties, other and the trial court writ of mandamus and direct very integrity adversary system. of the deny- withdrawing an its order to issue order ing of sanction. relators’ motion for order of Discretion Abuse an order further court to enter We direct the impression, in a case of first Even Akin, Gump, disqualifying firm of Supreme Texas Court issued writs of and, Strauss, Feld, specifi- L.L.P. Hauer & mandamus it found an abuse of discre where attorneys cally, R. Laurence Macon Kar- DeShazo, tion. Huie v. real Guide, plain- representing en Kroesche from argued legal question that because the con attorneys in ease. tiffs as of record this fronting an the trial court was issue of first Texas, impression in the court could not have GREEN, J., dissents, joined by DUNCAN resolving “abused its discretion” the issue. ANGELINI, JJ. supreme disagreed The cоurt and stated: GREEN, Justice, dissenting. “A no trial court has ‘discretion’ in deter- is whether non- The issue this case mining or applying what the law is the law disqualifica- settling force the defendant can Packer, the facts.” Walker plaintiffs lawyer and his law firm tion of the (Tex.1992). Consequently, S.W.2d negotiated plaintiffs lawyer because conclusion, legal the trial court’s erroneous testimony co-opted settlement law, even in an unsettled area of is an defecting after the latter had of a defendant abuse of discretion. See v. Mor- Lunsford lawyer. terminated the services of his The ris, (Tex.1988).6 S.W.2d no, obvious answer is but based DeShazo, Huie v. 922 S.W.2d 927-28 facts and on an erroneous view of the (Tex.1996). We conclude that the trial court jus- law, majority says disqualification apply proper failed to standard of con- respectfully Accordingly, tified. I dissent. and, therefore, duct abused his discretion majority begins with the mistaken as- when he disqualify denied the motion to attorneys sumption Gump, representing that Akin representing firm and the law plaintiffs, violated the rules of USSI. by meeting defendant Don Fra- conduct Remedy
Inadequate
at Law
represented by
zier at a time
he was
when
inadequate remedy,
interpretation
counsel. This
record is
On the issue
It is
likely
supported by
information has
the evidence.
uncon-
confidential
been
party,
Frazier who initiated
opposing
disclosed to an
we are con
troverted that
it was
happened
Gump.
with Akin
What
fronted with a Walker v. Packer situation.
the contact
clear,
Moreover,
permitted
got
he
is less
but there is
should Frazier be
to when
there
trial,
testify
plaintiffs at
some
that before
dis-
at least
evidence
behalf
provided Akin
position
place,
untenable
took
placed
defense is
cussions
*9
stating
Gump
clearly
a
he was no
attacking
accusing oppos
client and
with letter
a former
Indeed,
represented
by
counsel.
ing
longer
unethical behavior
of a
counsel of
front
Enoch,
(first
Lunsford,
Judge
the trial
court
dence on this
and held that
court
In
the trial
issue
Morris)
discovery
denying
Judge
plaintiffs’ discovery
its
on a
then
denied
of
abused
discretion
evidence
where such
in connection
their
defendant’s net worth
defendant’s net worth
with
punitive damages
damages.
ap-
a
claim. See
punitive
The
relevant to
Luns-
claim for
court of
J.)
ford,
(Kilgarlin,
at
and
peals
relators feel victimized what Frazier, Akin complaint is with
but their
Gump. courtesy, most matter of
As a
lawyers would confirm with counsel that relationship had been
attorney-client severed op- entering into discussions
before requirement in
posing party. But there is no *10 Gump lawyers to do If the Akin
the law so. notes 827 S.W.2d rant 1. Comment v. 4.02(a) Godbey, the su- Enterprises, such commu Inc. that Rule does not cover Medical application of a long lawyer preme nications “as as the does court extended attorney-client confi- encourage regarding the communication with presumption cause or joint- for the other of a out the consent member to the non-client dences Further, duty party.” “impose confidentiality the rule agreement. Nor does defense affirmatively discourage disqualification commu that the the court ruled lawyer’s client law film nications between to the entire extended Enterp., rеpresented persons, organizations, other National Medical this situation. government.” pre analysis The issue is entities of Id. court’s at 131. The 924 S.W.2d standard, here, is not whether it was and the sented on the Walker based (and corresponding unethical for Landreth to contact broadening application discretion) advice, knowledge, supported and consent without finding of a abuse Rather, attorney. of Frazier’s the issue law. Id. to federal case by references Akin, Gump’s participation in the here. approach focused on will use a similar 129-32. We meeting at their law offices without Cannan’s requires that a The Fifth Circuit find that consent. We would be strained to an former Canon 9 be disqualification under