*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 05-20404

_____________________

IN RE: HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; TOMMY THOMAS, Sheriff, Individually

and in his official capacity; PRESTON FOOSE, Deputy, Individually

and in his official capacity; DAN SHATTUCK, Deputy, Individually

and in his official capacity; MANUEL MORENO, Deputy, Individually

and in his official capacity; ALEXANDER ROCHA, Sergeant,

Individually and in his official capacity; JOHN PALERMO, Deputy,

Individually and in his official capacity; MARY BAKER; FRANK E.

SANDERS, MICHAEL A. STAFFORD, Harris County Attorney, In his

official capacity,

Petitioners.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-186

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES, Chief Judge and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have before us a petition for mandamus requesting that we

vacate the district court’s order disqualifying Harris County

Attorneys Mary Baker and Frank E. Sanders, and the rest of the

Harris County Attorney’s office from representing the county and

its officers in the underlying lawsuit against Harris County.

Because we agree with the petitioners that they lack adequate

alternative means to seek relief, we consider whether their
2

disqualification was erroneous. In re American Airlines, Inc., 972

F.2d 605, 608-09 (5th Cir. 1992). 

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the

district court did not err in disqualifying Attorneys Sanders and

Baker. Id. The record provides ample basis to support the

district court’s finding that the conduct of Sanders and Baker in

the discovery proceedings would prevent the parties from receiving

a fair trial, were these attorneys permitted to continue to

represent the defendants in a trial before a judge who has lost

confidence in their integrity and in which their own conduct could

become a focal point. 

We do find, however, that the court’s disqualification of the

entire Harris County Attorney’s Office was unjustified.

“[A]ttorney disqualification, particularly the disqualification of

an entire [office], is a sanction that must not be imposed

cavalierly.” FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1316 (5th

Cir. 1995). The district court’s order focused entirely on the

conduct of the two named attorneys. The court made no findings of

impropriety as to the rest of the office, noting only in passing

that “the conduct of [Baker and Sanders] negatively influenced

others in this suit.” This is insufficient to support such a

drastic remedy. See United States v. Bolden, 353 F.3d 870, 879

(10th Cir. 2003) (reversing disqualification order where district

court failed to detail either misconduct or alleged conflicts of
3

interest on the part of the entire U.S. Attorney’s office). We

therefore affirm the disqualification of Attorneys Baker and

Sanders and reverse the disqualification of all other attorneys in

the Harris County Attorney’s Office.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus

is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.