N EWELL , J., filed a concurring statement in which J OHNSON and R ICHARDSON , JJ., joined.

I agree with this Court’s denial of the relators’ petitions for writ of mandamus. I write separately to clarify why denial of relief is appropriate. Relators acknowledge in their joint application that they already have an adequate remedy at law. Braxton v. Dunn , 803 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Petition at 3-4 (“The writ of habeas corpus is the

central legal mechanism through which the right to bail is enforced. . . . Anyone may petition *2 Adame Concurring – 2 for a writ[.]”). The availability of an adequate remedy at law renders mandamus relief inappropriate irrespective of the merits of relators’ legal complaints.

With these observations I join the Court’s denial of mandamus relief.

Filed: June 24, 2015

Do Not Publish

[1] Relators’ counsel filed one petition for writ of mandamus requesting relief for not only their named clients, but also one-hundred-and-forty-three other individuals who may or may not be represented by other attorneys. However well-intentioned this joint filing might have been, I would caution defense counsel to be mindful of an attorney’s duty of candor to the court under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and how it might apply to a representation of the existence of an attorney-client relationship where listed relators may already be represented by other counsel.