## NO. 12-08-00242-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEX AS

§ IN RE: W. J. SAME

S, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING §
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION W.J

. Sames seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the responde nt, the Honora ble P au l E. Whit e, J udg e of the 159th Judicial District of Ang elina County , Texas a nd presiding administrative judge , to hear

his moti on to rec use D. Da vid Hear ne and Robe rt At h erton, the pa nel cha ir and the committee cha ir, respe ctively , of the District 2B Grieva nce Committee. We deny the petition. P RE RE QUI S I T E S T O M ANDAMUS A writ of manda

mus will i s s u e t o co rre ct a c lear abuse of discretion whe n there is no adequate reme dy

by appea l. I n r eP r u d e n t i a l I n s. C o . o f A m. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135-36 (Te x . 2004); Walker v. Pac ker , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). A trial cour t abuses its discretion if it rea ches

a de c isi on so a rb itr a ry

a nd un re a so na

ble a s to a mou

nt t o a c le a r a nd pr e jud ic ia l e rr or

of law o r i f i t clea rly fails to corr ectly

analy ze or apply

the law. Walker , 827 S.W .2d at 839-40. The rela tor has the burde n to establish the prer equisite s to mandamus. Cana dia n He lic op te rs L td. v . W itt ig , 876 S.W .2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994). This burden is a he avy one. Id .
A V A ILA BILITY O F M ANDAMUS Th e Te xas S up re me Court ha s th e c on sti tut ion a l and statut or y re sp on sib ili ty wi thi n the Sta te of Texas for the lawy er discipline a nd disability

sy stem. T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. prea mble, reprinted in T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE ANN ., tit. 2, subtit. G app A–2 (Vernon 2005). Conseque ntly , it has2

inhere nt power to maintain a ppropria t e s t an dards of

profe ssional conduct and to dispose of individual cases of lawy er discipline and disability in a nondiscriminatory

manner . See id

. To ca rry out this re sponsibili ty , the cour t has promulg ated the r

ules of disciplinary

proce dure. See T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 1.01—15.11, reprinted in T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE ANN ., tit. 2 , s u b t it. G app A–2 (Ve rnon 2005 & Supp. 2007). Subject to the inhere nt power of the supreme court, re sponsibili ty for a d m inistering a

nd supervising lawy er discipline a nd disability

is deleg ated to the board of direc tors of the State B ar of Texas. T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. prea mble. This responsibility is carr ied out, in part, by local g rieva nce committees, acc ording to the rules of disciplinary proce dure. See T EX
. R. D I SCI PLI N A RY P. 2.01, 2.05, 2.07. Texas is g eog raphic ally divided into disciplinary districts that are c oextensive with the districts of elec ted direc tors of the State B ar of Texas. T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 2.01, reprinted in T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE ANN ., tit. 2, subt it. G app A–2 (V ernon 2005) . The e lected dir ector s of the State B ar nominate , and the pr esident of the State B ar a p p o i nts, the members of g rieva nce committees within eac h disciplinary district. T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 2.02. Ea c h me mbe r o f a g ri e va

nc e c omm itt e e a c ts thr ou g h p a ne ls a ssi g ne d b y the c omm itt e e c ha ir for summary

dispositi on dockets a

nd evidentiar

y hear ings rela ting to the c omplaints pending be fore the committee. T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 2.06. Promptly afte r assig nment, notice must be provided to the responde nt na

med in the complaint of the names and addr esses of the panel membe rs assig ned to the complaint. Id

. A member

is disqualified or is subject to rec usal as a p an el member f or an evidentiar y hear ing if a dis trict judge would, under simi lar circumstance s, be disqualified or r ecuse d. Id . Any alleg ed grounds for di squalification or rec usal of a panel member ar e conc lusively waived if not broug ht to the attention of the pane l within ten day s after rec eipt of notification of the names and addre sses of members of the panel. Id . Gr ound s for dis qu a lif

ic a tio n or re c us a l not r e a so na bly discovera ble within the ten day

period may

be asserted withi n ten day s afte r t hey wer e discove red or in the exercise of re asonable diligenc e should have been disc overe d. Id . I n this case, r ely ing on Texas Rule of Civil P roce dure 18a , Sames filed a motion re questing the re spondent, as presiding administ rative judge , to rec use Hearne and Ather ton. The re spondent declined to se t a hea

ring on Sames’s moti o n , an d S am es filed this orig inal proce eding . Rule 18a perta ins solely to the recusal or disqualification of judge s. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 18a. Te x as Disciplinary3

Rule 2.06 sets out the proce dure fo r seeking disqualification or re cusal of a g rieva nce c ommitt ee panel membe r and makes no provision f or disqualification or re cusal by the pre siding a dminist rative judge

. See T EX
. R. D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 2.06. There fore , we cannot conclude that the responde nt abused his dis c re tio n in de c lin ing to he a r Sa me s’ s re c us a l mo tio n. B e c a us e Sa me s h a s n ot s a tis fi e d th e fi rs t prer equisite to mandamus (an abuse of discretion by the trial cour t), we ne ed not addr ess the sec ond (u nava ila bil ity of a n a de qu a te a

pp e llate re me dy

). Sa me s’ s p e tit ion

fo r w ri t of mand a mus is denied .

BR IA N H OY LE J ustice
Opinion delivere d J une 18, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)