1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2000- PB
- 7000049- L1 , i n t h e Coun t y Cour t a t La w N o. 1, W ebb

C o unt y , T exas , t he H o no rable Alvi no “ B en” M o ral es presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No. 04-10-00175- CV IN RE Maria Cristina Sada de BRITTI NG HAM, Ang el Eduar do Marr oquin Britting ham, Danie l Milm o Br ittingham, and Ma ria Cristina L obeira Br ittingham Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 21, 2010 MOTI ON TO D I SQUAL I FY COU NSELGRANTED; ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI

NG AB ATED FOR THI RTY DAYS Real par ty in i n tere st Kevin M. Mackie , Successor Administrator of the Estate of Juan Rob e rt o B ri tti ng ham- Mc L e an, De c e a se d, ha s move d to disq ua lif y fo rm e r F ourt

h Co ur t of Ap pe a ls Justi c e Sara

h Dunc an and a ll of the me mbe rs of he r law fi rm , L oc ke L or d B iss e ll & L id del l L L P, fr om r e pr e se nti ngre lator s Ma ri a Cr ist ina Sa da de B ri tti ngham, Angel Edua rd o M arr oq

uin Br ittingham, Daniel Milmo B rittingham, a nd Maria Cristina L obeira Br ittingham in this or i gi nal proce eding
. The ba sis asserted f or the disqualification is t he undisputed fa ct that Dunca n serve d as a par ticipating justice on the pane l in Tije rin a v . M ac k ie , No. 04-05-00213- CV, 2006 WL39793604
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 2- (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 20 06 , n o pe t.) (a ff ir min g tw o tri a l court or de rs a pp e a le d f ro m th e same ancillar y probate proce edingfrom which the instant procee ding a rises). Dunc an a sse rt s sh e and

he r f ir m sh ou ld n ot b e dis qu a lif ie d b e c aus e: (1) th e mot ion to disqualify does not establish a violation of Te x as Discipli nary Rule of Profe ssional Conduct 1.11(a); (2) M a c k iec o n s e nte d

to D u ncan’ s repr esentation of relator s; and (3) Ma ckie must establish prejudice
an d h a s f a i l e d t o d o s o . W e d i s a g r e e w i thr e l at o r s ’ c o n t e n t i o n s an d g r an tth e m o t i o nt o d i s qu a l i f y. AN AL YSI S A. Violation of

Texas Disciplin ary Rule of Pr ofession al Condu ct 1.11 Di sq ua lif ic atio n is a

se ve re re me dy be c a

us e it c an c a

us e imm e diate ha

rm by de pr ivi ng a pa

rt y of its c hosen counse l and disrupting c ourt proce eding s. Se e In reSa nd e rs , 1 5 3 S. W. 3 d

5 4 , 5 7 ( T e x. 2 0 0 4 ) ( o r i g . p r o c e e d i n g ) (p e r c ur ia m) ; In re Nitla S.A. de C.V. , 92 S.W .3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig . proce eding ) ( per c uriam). As a result, cour

ts must adhere to a

n exacting sta

ndard when consideringm o t i o n s t o d i squalify so as to discourag e their use as a dilatory trial tactic. Se e In re Nitl a , 9 2 S
. W
. 3 d

at4 2 2 (c i t i n g Sp e ar

s v . F ou rth Cou rt of A

pp e als , 797 S.W .2d 654, 656 (Tex. 1990) (orig . proce eding )). We look to the disciplinary rules to dec ide d i s qualification issues, but t he disciplinary

rules ar e merely guidelines and not controlli ngstandards f or motions to dis qualify
. Id. Te xas D isc ipl ina

ry Rul e of Pr of

e ssi on a l Cond

uc t 1.11 pr ov ide s in r e le va nt p art a s f oll ow s: (a) A l awyer shall not represe nt anyone in conne ction with a matter in whichthe lawye r h a s p a sse d u po n th e me ri ts o r o the rw ise participated persona lly and substantially as an a djudicatory

officia l or law cle rk to an a djudicatory officia l, unless all parties to the proce edingconsent a fter disc losure. T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1.11(a) , reprinted in T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN ., tit . 2 , s ub tit
. G app. A ( Ver

non 2005) (T EX . S TA TE B A R R. ar t
. X, § 9). Relator s acknow ledg e Dunc an04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 3- participated per sonally

and substantially

as an a djudicatory

officia l in Tijerina. See Tijerina , 2006 WL397936. Howeve r, re lators contend D uncan and her firm are not disqualified fr om repre senting relators under Rule 1.11( a) be cause the orig inal proce edingbefor e this court and Tijerina are not the same “ matter” as re quired for disqualification u n d er t h e rule
. SeeT EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1.11(a)
. This is an issue of first impression in this court and we are awa re of no other Te x as cour

t that has considered thi s issue. Rule 1.11 does not define the t erm “matter,” but the comment to Rule 1.11 provides that thi s rule g ener ally para llels Rule 1.10. See id. cmt. 1. Rule 1.10(f)( 1)-( 2) def ines the te rm “ matte r” a s f

oll ow s: (1) Any adjudicator

y proce eding , application, reque st f or a r uling or other de termination, contra ct, claim, contr o v ersy , investigation, char g e ac cusation, ar

rest or other similar, particula r transa ction involving a spe cific pa

rty or par ties; and (2 ) a ny oth e r a c tio n or tr ans a c tio n co ve re d by the c on fl ic t of

int e re st r u l e s o f th e a p p r o p r i at e g o v e r

n m e n ta g e n c y. Id. 1. 10 (f )(1)-(2 ). Re lator s c onte nd the de fi nit ion

of “ matte r” in R

ule 1. 10 (f

)( 1) is c omp le te ly circ ular in the c ontextof appe als bec ause a ppeals a nd orig inal proce eding s are both: (1) a pa rt of the la rg e r “ a d j u d i c at o r y p r o c e e d i n g ” i n th e tr i a l c o urt ; an d ( 2 ) s e p ar at e “ a d j u d i c at o r y p r o c e e d i n g s ” in the appe llate cour

t. Relators furthe r asse rt an adjudicatory proce edingin the appellate court fre quently involves discrete parties and issues even though it a rises out of a larger t ri al court “adjudicatory

proce eding .” The ref

ore, r elators c onclude a “matter ” can only mean a discrete appea l or orig inal proce eding . We disag ree . The de finition of “matter” in Rule 1.10(f)( 1) includes a “similar, par

ticular tra nsaction involving a spe cific pa

rty or par ties.” Se e id . The unde rlying c ase g iving r ise to this o ri ginal proce edingis an ancillary probate proce edingthat has bee n ong oing sinc e 2000. To date, fourte en04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

2 ... See In r e Br i t t i ngham , N o . 0 4 -1 0 -0 0 1 7 5 -C V (filed F e b . 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ) (d isc o v e ry p o st-ju d g m e n t); Br i t t i n g h a mS a d a v . M a c k ie , N o . 0 4 -0 9 -0 0 8 1 0 -C V (fil e d D e c . 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) (a p p e a l f ro m ju d g m e n t i n fav o r o f esta te ); I n r e Es t at e of Br i t t i ngham

- M cL ean , No. 04
- 09
- 00 23 8- CV ( f i l e d A pr i l 23 , 20 09 ) ( a pp e a l f r om or de r a pp r ov i n g c l a i m o f J u a n R. B ri t t i ngham A gui rr e); I n r e Br i t t i ngham

- Sada , N o . 0 4 -0 9 -0 0 4 8 9 -C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 2 9 6 5 1 6 ( T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n io O c t. 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , o rig . p ro c e e d ing ) (m o tio n to c o m p e l d e p o s it io n o f l e g islato r re g a rd ing leg islativ e c o n tinu a n c e ); In re Br i t t i ngham

- Sada , N o . 04
- 0 9
- 0 0 4 8 8
- C V , 20 0 9 W L 2 5 6 8 3 4 1 (T ex. App.

— Sa n An t on i o A ug. 19 , 20 0 9 , ori g. pro ceed i ng) (p e r c u ria m ) (m e m . o p .) (m o tio n to s trike in te rv e n tio n o f T ije rin a ); I n r e Br i t t i ngham

- Sada , N o. 04- 09- 00480- CV , 2009 W L 2 5 1 7 1 1 0 (T ex. A p p . — Sa n A nt o ni o A ug. 12 , 20 0 9 , ori g. pro ceed i ng) ( p er curi am ) ( m em . o p .) (m o tio n to st ri ke inte rv e n tio n o f T ije rin a ); I n r e Br i t t i ngham

- Sada , N o . 0 4 -0 8 -0 0 6 8 8 -C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 6 3 3 6 1 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n io F e b . 4 , 2 0 0 9 , o rig . p ro c e e d ing [m a n d . d e n ie d ]) ( p e r c u ria m ) (m e m . o p .) (fo ru m no n c o n v e n ie n s) ; G l obal F in . S e rv s., L. L. C. v . Es t at e of

M cL ean , N o . 0 4 -0 7 -0 0 6 2 7 -C V , 2 0 0 8 W L 3 7 2 5 2 1 ( T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n io F e b . 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , no p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (a rb itra tio n ); G l obal Fi n. Se r vs . , L. L. C. v . Es t at e of M cL ean , No s . 0 4
- 0 4
- 0 0 8 5 4
- C V & 0 4
- 0 5
- 0 0 0 7 4
- C V, 2 0 0 7 W L 1 7 5 9 9 4 0 (T ex. A p p . — Sa n A nt o ni o June 2 0 , 20 0 7 , no p et
. ) ( m em . op . ) ( arbit rat i o n and plea i n ab at em ent ); Tijerin a v . M a c k ie , No. 04
- 05
- 00 21 3- CV, 20 06 W L 39 79 36 ( T e x . Ap p.
— Sa n An t on i o F e b. 22 , 20 06 , n o p e t
. ) ( me m. op . ) ( j ur i s di ct i on; appo i nt ment of M ack i e a s s ucc es s or a dm i ni s t r at or; bond se t f or M ack i e; an d cont i ng ent f ee cont r act b et ween M acki e and l aw f i rm rep res ent i ng hi m i n hi s cap aci t y as ad m i ni st rat o r) ; In re A y a la , N o. 04- 01- 00234- CV , 2006 W L 2 6 8 2 2 2 2 ( T ex. A pp . — San A nt oni o Sept
. 20 , 20 06 , ori g. procee di ng ) ( per cur i am) ( mem . op . ) ( mo t i on t o q ua sh su b p o e n a ); A y a la v . M a c k ie , 158 S. W
. 3d 568 ( T ex . App.

— Sa n An t on i o 2005, pe t
. de n i ed) ( appoi n t men t of s u cc es s or a d m inistra to r) ; Br i t t i ngham

- Sada de Pow ers v . Anci l l ar y Es t at e of

Br i t t i ngham

- M cL ean , 15 8 S.W
. 3 d 51 8 (T ex. A p p . — Sa n A nt o ni o 20 0 4 , pe t
. de ni ed ) ( p ers o nal jur i sdi ct i o n); Ayal a v . Br i t t i ngham , 131 S. W
. 3d 3 ( T ex. Ap p.
— San A n to n io 2 0 0 3 ), rev’d , D e A y a la v . M a c k ie , 1 9 3 S
. W
. 3 d 57 5 (T ex. 20 0 6 ) ( ad m i ss i o n of wi l l t o pro b at e and ap p o i nt m ent o f ex e c u trix)
.

- 4- appea ls and orig inal proce eding s have be en filed in this court, a ll arising out of the same a

ncillary probate proce edingin Trial Court Cause No. 2000- PB-7000049- l1. 2 Fur thermore , probate proce eding s are differ ent from other proce eding s in that there is a ne ed t o re v i ew co n tro l l i n g, i n t erm ed i at e d ec i s i o n s b ef o re an erro r can h arm l at er p h as es o f t h e p ro ce ed i n g. See Logan v. M

cDaniel , 21 S.W.3 d 683 , 688 (T e x. Ap p. — Aus tin 20 00 , p e t. d e nie d) ; se e als o I n r e Es tate of Pad

illa , 1 03 S.W. 3d

56 3, 56 5- 66 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 03 , n o pe t.) . O ne pr ob ate proce edingconsists of a continuingseries of events in which the probate court will make de cisions at various points in the administration of the estate on which later decisions will be base d. Id. As
a re su lt , multipl e order s are enter ed on cer tain discrete issues and are final and a ppeala ble. See D e Ay ala v . M

ac k ie , 193 S.W .3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006). Nonetheless, these discr ete a ppeala ble issues arise f rom one probate proc eeding
.04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 5- We conclude the term “matter” in Rule 1.11(a ) in the appe llate context includes a “similar, particula r transa ction involving a spe cific pa rty or par ties,” and in this particular c ase the “matter ” is the ancillary

probate proce edingan d not eac h discrete appea l or orig inal proce eding
. See T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1.10(a) & 1.11( a). We conclude D uncan is re prese nting r elators “in conne ction with a matter in whic h [she] has passe d upon the meri t s o r ot herw ise participated persona lly

and substantially

as an a djudicatory

officia l or l aw clerk to an adjudicatory officia l.” See id. 1.11(a)
. B. Co nse nt Be c a u s e w e h old that this original proc eedinginvolves a matter in whic h Dunca n participated persona lly

and substantially as an adjudicator y officia l, D uncan and her firm are disqualified from repr esentingrelators unl ess “a ll parties to the proc eedingconsent[ed] after disclosure .” See id. 1.11(a) . Relators conte nd Mackie ’s counse l ha s known of Dunca n’s re prese ntation of relators since they filed Appe llants’ Br ief in Cause N o. 04-09-00238- CV on November 23, 2009. We hold that simply listi ngDunca

n on a brie f i n an appe llate proc eedingis not a proper “disclosure ” of the
c on fl ic t un de r R

ule 1. 11 (a ). With in t

he c onte xt of

Rul e 1. 11 (a ), a

dis c los ur e re qu ir e s th e lawye r t o inform the par

ty that she par

ticipated in the matter persona lly and substantially as an a djudicatory officia l. The mere l i s t i n g o f an attorne y in the signature block of an appe llate brief

does not constitute such a disclosure
. Relators conte nd M ac k ie’s counse l consented to the r epre sentation when he informed relators’ for

mer c ounsel he did not oppose the motions to substitut e Dunca n and her firm as counse l for r elators in Cause N os. 04-09-00238-CV a nd 04-09-00810- CV. The motions to subst itute were filed on F ebrua

ry 25, 2010 and ar e still pe nding. Mackie responds that he was una war e Dunc an wa s04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 6- on the pane l in Tijerina u n t il March 2, 2010 whe n he re viewed this cour t’s opinion that lis ted Dunca n as a justice participating on the panel. Although the aff idavit from re lators’ for

mer c ounsel does state that Ma ckie did not oppose the moti ons to substitut e, the a ffidavit does not e stablish that Dunca n’s par ticipation in Tijerina was disclosed to Mackie or his counsel when Ma ckie state d he would not oppose the substituti on. There fore , relators failed to e stablish that Mackie “ consent[ed] afte r disclosure.” See id. 1.11(a)
. C. P rej udi ce Relators next assert Mac kie must estab l ish he has bee n prejudice d in order f or disqualification t o be re quired unde r Rule 1.11(a ). Se e In reSa nd e rs , 1 53 S.W. 3d

at 57 ; In reNitl

a , 92 S.W .3d at 422

. We disag ree . In reSa nd e rs inv olv e d th e dis qu a lif ic atio n o f a

lawye r u nd e r R ule 3.08(a) based on the asser tion that the lawy er w ould be serving i n dual roles a s an advoc ate a nd a witness. See153 S.W .3d at 57. The comment to Rule 3.08 specifica lly provides that the r

ule “may furnish some guidance in those proce dural disqualification disput es whe re t h e party seeking disqualification ca

n demonstrate a ctual pre

judice to itself re sulting fr om the o p p o s i n g lawyer’ s service in the du al roles.” T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 3.08 cmt. 10. The Court deter mined that a “party reque sting disqualification [under Rule 3.08(a) ] must demonstrate that the opposing la

wy er’ s dual roles a s attorney and witness will cause the par ty actua l prejudice .” In re Sa nd e rs , 153 S.W .3d at 57 (c i t i n g Ayres v . Canales , 7 9 0 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 8 (T ex . 1 9 9 0 ) ( h o l d i n g a showingof pre

judice is requir ed when disqualification i s sought ba sed on a la wy er’ s dual roles a s attorney and witness))
. In reNitl a involved a motion to disqualify the lawyer on the basis that the lawyer r eviewe d privileg ed docume nts he rece ived from the t rial court. See 92 S.W .3d at 422. The Court c oncluded04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 7- there wer e no dis ciplinary rules or prior cases that provided guidanc e, and instead set out a test that included the r equire ment that the par ty seekingdisqualification show pre judice. Id. These c ases are disti nguishable from the case at hand bec ause unlike In reNitl a , Rule 1.11 provides this court with guidance , and unlike In reSa nd e rs , neither the rule nor the comm ent provides that the pa

rty seeking disqualification must show pr ejudice. T o require the par ty seeking disqualification under

Rule 1.11 to show prejudice would likely place an unattaina

ble burde n on that party beca use the pa rty seekingdisqualification does not know what insight an adjudicator y officia l ha s g a in ed abo ut the un de rl yingc a se . In th is c a se , M a c kie wo uld no t be pr ivy

to d isc us sio ns in which Dunc an may

have pa rticipated a s a pane l member in Tijerina. See Tijerina , 2006 WL397936. Tijerina “ w a s th e f

o urth a p p e a l [ an d

f if th p r o c e e d in g ] t o [th e F o urth ] Co urt, ” an d s tate d th at “ [t ]o understand where we are today , a brief re view of the history of this case is nece ssary .” See Tijerina , 2006 WL397936, at *1. Fr om this s t at ement, one c ould infer that the pa nel re viewed the entire history of the pre ceding

appea ls and orig inal proce eding s. RequiringMacki e t o show that the
c on fi de nti a l di sc us sio ns amon g app ell ate c ourt jus tic e s p re

jud ic e d h im w ou ld b e an im po ssi ble burden, a nd one we do not believe the r ule does or should impose. D. Waiver Finally , relators contend Mackie waived hi s complaint by failingto exercise due dilig ence . See Grant v . Th irte e nth Cou rt o f A pp e als , 8 88 S.W. 2d 46 6, 46 8 (T e x. 19 94 ) (pe r c ur iam) ; Vaughan v. W alther , 875 S.W. 2d 69 0, 69 0 ( Te x. 19 94 ) (pe r c ur iam) ; see also In re Users Sy s. Servs., Inc

. , 22 S.W .3d 331, 337-38 (Tex. 1999) (B aker , J ., concur ring ). Relators ag ain rely on their asse rtion that Duncan f ir st a pp e are d in

thi s c ourt

on No ve mbe r 2 3, 20 09 wi th t he fi lin gof

Ap pe lla nts ’ B ri e f i n Cause No. 04- 09-00238-CV. Ag ain, we c annot say this was a p ro p erdisclosure that would plac e04
- 10
- 00 17 5- CV

- 8- the burde n on Mackie to pursue disqualification of Dunca n at that time. As a result, we c onclude Mackie did not waive his rig ht to seek the disqualification of Dunca n and her firm. E. Disqu alif

ication of Firm Ha vin gde te rm ine d D un c an mu st b e dis qu a lif ie d f ro m f ur the r r e pr e se ntatio n o f r e lator s in this original pr ocee d i n g, we now turn to whethe r L ocke L ord B issell & L iddell L L P can continue repr esentation of relator s. Rule 1.11(c) provides an avenue by which a firm can continue to re prese nt
a pa rt y e ve n if a lawye r at that fir m is dis qu a lif

ie d fr om re pr e se nti ng the pa rt y . Th e Rul e pr ov ide s: (c) I f par ag raph ( a) is applicable to a lawy er, no other lawy er in a firm with which that l aw y er i s associate d may knowing ly

undertake or c ontin ue re pr e se ntatio n in

the matte r u

nle ss: (1 ) t he lawye r who is sub

jec t to pa

ra g ra ph(a ) i s sc re e ne d frompa

rt ic ipatio n in

the matte r a

nd is apportioned no pa

rt of the f ee the ref rom; and (2) wr itten notice is promptly g iven to the other p art i es t o th e p ro ce ed i n g. T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1.11(c) . Howeve r, t he par ties do not dispute that Duncan
and he r f ir m ha ve no t com

pli e d w ithRul e 1. 11 (c ). Th e re fo re , L oc ke L or d B iss e ll & L idd e ll L L P is also disqualified fr om further repr esentation of relator s in this original proc eeding
.

CO NC LU SION As a result of t he foreg oing, we gra nt Mackie ’s m otion to disqualify Dunca n and L ocke L ord Bissell & L iddell L L P from further repre sentation of relators i n this orig inal proce eding . There fore , we a bate the or ig ina l pr oc e e din gfo r t hir ty da y s to a llo w r e lator s to ob ta in n e w c ouns e l. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice