## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00062

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF NOBL E RAY PRICE, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No. P05888

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R At the time the notice of appeal in this matter was filed, Kenneth A. Krohn had been retained by Janie Price, the appe llant, to act as her legal representative in this matter. Consequently, Krohn was designated as Price’s lead appellate counsel. Currently pending before
this C ourt is a motion to substitute counsel filed by attorney Thomas M. Michel, and agreed to by Krohn. Michel represents in the motion that he has now been retained to represent Price and asks this Court to allow him to substitute for Krohn as counsel of record for Price in this matter. For the reasons set forth below, we have considered and grante d Michel’s motion seeking to substitute
as counsel of record in this matter. When an appellant who is represented on appeal by retained counsel later retains other counsel, Rule 6.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establishes the proper proc edure for accomplishing the withdrawal and substitution. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(d). Under Rule 6.5, counsel of record

— Krohn in this case

— is required to file a motion to withdraw before newly retained counsel may be substituted. Id. The actions taken for t he purpose of substituting Michel for Krohn as appellate counsel of record for Price fail to satisfy the procedural requirements established by Rule 6.5. However, as the Seventh Court of Appeals has aptly noted, “The purpose of Rule 6.5 is to
insure that a party not be unwittingly left unrepresented before an appellate court.” Medlock v.
State , No. 07

- 15

- 00359

- CR, 2015 WL 6939196 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Nov. 9, 2015, order ) (discussing procedure established by Rule 6.5 of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for withdrawing and substituting counsel on appeal). In light of the purpose behind Rule 6.5, we have3

reviewed the circumstances as represented in Michel’s motion to substitute counsel and are comfortable that Price has received the protection that Rule 6.5 was meant to provide. Further, Price is free to retain counsel of her choosing. Therefore, in the interests of justice and judicial economy, we utilize Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the requirement that Krohn file a motion t o withdraw and grant the motion to substitute Michel for Krohn as attorney of record in this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2. Additionally, Michel filed on Price’s behalf a motion seeking an extension of the deadline for filing Price’s appellate brief in th is matter. The brief is currently due November 7, 2016, and Michel seeks to extend that deadline by fourteen days, making the brief due November 21, 2016. We hereby grant the requested extension of time. Price’s appellate brief is due to be filed with t his Court on or before November 21, 2016. Additional requests for extensions of time will not be granted absent the demonstration of extraordinary circumstances warranting a further extension.
IT IS SO ORDRED.

BY THE COURT
Date: November 15, 2016