### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00789- CV

Sam uel Adjei Sarfo, App ellant

v. Com m ission for Law yer D iscipli ne, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 201 ST DISTRI CT NO. D-1 -GN-1 8-0 0339 2, H ONO RAB LE ALB ERT M. MCCAI G, JR., J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap p el l an t Samuel Adjei Sarfo filed a notice of appea l in November 2018. I n h i s notice of appea l, he states that he is filing a “collate ral appea l on all portion s of the signe d order deny ing his plea to the jurisdiction and that which g rante d Petitioner’s summary judgme nt and found that he has violated Rule 8.04(a) (7) and Ru l e 8
. 0 4(a) (11) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.”

On J anuar

y 22, 2019, th e Clerk of this Court sent notice to Sarfo that this Court appea red to lack jurisdiction over this appe al b ec ause this Court g ener ally is limit ed to appea ls in which there exis ts a final judgme nt or appea lable order
. See Tex. Civ. P ra c. & R em . C ode § 51.014(a) (listing order s that are subject to interlocutor y ap peal) ; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (ex plaining that “g ener al rule, with a few mostly statutoryexceptions, is that an ap p ea l may be taken only from a final judgme nt”). The Clerk reque sted a

response explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. Sarfo has filed a response , but he has failed to demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction
over this appea l. Sarfo arg ues that the order g ranting the Commi ssion for L awy er Dis cipl ine’s motion for part i al summary judgme nt was a final judgme nt beca use it disposed of all parties and issues. Sarfo, howeve r, does not dispute that the “sanc tions phase” rema ins pending befor e the trial court. The Commi ssion filed its disciplinary petition ag ainst Sarfo, seeking judgme nt that Sarfo “be disciplined as the fac ts shall war rant and that [t he Commi s s i o n ] h av e s u ch other further relief to which [i t is] e ntitled, including costs of cour t and attorne y ’s fe es.” A fter the trial court e ntere d its order g ranting the Commi ssion’s motion for partial summary judgme nt, it enter ed a scheduling order setting trial for Fe bruar

y 21, 2019. See Tex
. R
. Di s ciplinary P. 3.09 (addr essing judgme nt in disciplinary proce eding ag ainst attorney ), 3.10 (addr essing imposit ion of sanction s ), 3 .15 (authorizing appea ls from “final judgme nt of t he dis trict court an d any order revoking or refusing to revoke probation of a

suspension from the pra ctice of law”)
. Sarfo also arg ues that the appea l “ra ises the question of the jurisdiction of the Court, and any ruling on it is appea lable at an y t i m e. ” T h e t rial court’s order deny ing his plea to the jurisdiction, howeve r, is not among the ty pes of order s subject to interlocutory appea l. See, e.g. , Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (8) (authorizing interlocutory appea l from order g ranting or deny ing ple a to jurisdiction by g overnme ntal unit). Be cause we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.
2__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Goodwin, B aker , and Tria na Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: F ebrua

ry 12, 2019

3