T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 07- 2231- CV , s t y l ed Kat hr yne Va u s e v . L i b e r t

y I ns ur ance Cor

por at i on 1 a n d J u stin S m ith , p e n d i n g i n t h e 2 5 t h J u d i c i a l Di s t r i c t Co u r t , Gu a d a l u p e Co u n t y , Te x a s , t h e Ho n o r a b l e Dw i g h t E. P eschel presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### M E M ORANDUM OP I NI ON No . 0 4- 08 -0 04 64 -C V IN RE LIBE RT Y I NSU RA NC E C OR P OR AT ION Or i gi n al M an d am u s P ro ce ed i n g 1 Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 27, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED Relator L iberty

I nsuranc e Corporation (“L iberty Mutual”) se eks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial cour

t to gr ant its moti on to disqualify opposing c ounsel. Be cause we c annot say the tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n, we de ny the pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

mand amus . The unde rlying suit is a bad f aith worke rs’ c ompensation case . The plaintiff is re prese nted by Do yle Ra izne r L L P ( “ Do yle Ra izne r” ). Attor ne y Pa tr ic k D e nn is, a

th ir d- y e ar a sso c iate wi th Doy le R aizner

li s te d o nth e p le a d in g s in

th e u n d e r ly

in g s u it , w a s p r e v io u s ly

e mp lo y e d

b y V in s on & E lkins, L L P (V& E). De nnis worked on f our matters f

or L iberty Mutual while with V& E.04
- 08
- 00 46 4- CV

- 2- L iberty Mutual asserts that De nnis’s prior re prese ntation of L iberty Mutual involv ed matters substantially

related to the cur

rent matter

such that there is a g enuine thre at that conf idence s disclosed to D ennis will be reve aled to L iberty Mutual’s opponent. See NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank v

. Coker , 7 65 S.W. 2d

39 8, 40 0 ( Te x. 1989 ); T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1. 09 . L ibe rt y Mutua l p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e th a t D e n n is b il le d a lm o s t 1 0 0 h o u r s to f o u r L ib e rty M u tu a l case s inv olv ingc la ims of

ba d f a ithand ins ur anc e c ode vi olatio ns in c onne c tio n w ithwo rk e rs ’ compensation claims. These matter s, L iberty Mutual argues, are “substantially related” to the underlying suit, wa

rra nting De nnis’s and Doyle Raizner’s disqualification. Plaintiff responded with a n aff idavit f rom Dennis disavowing that the four V& E ca ses wer e substantially

related to the under ly ing suit, dec laringthat he n ev er had ac cess to any confide ntial information about L iberty Mutual while wit h V& E, and st ating that he has not disclosed any thing about L ibe rty

M u tu a l t o an y o n e a t D o yle Ra iz n e r . Pl a inti f f n o te d th a t t h r e e o f th e f o u r matters Dennis worke d on wer e administrative a ppeals that involved proc edura l issues, a n d that Dennis’s inv olv e me nt i n th e on e c a se wi th s imi lar c a us e s of a c tio n wa s pe ri ph e ra l and did no t invo lve a c c e ss to any confide ntial information. A hea ring was he ld on the motion to di squalify on April 4 , 2 0 0 8
. T h e o nly witness was Dennis. The tr ial court took the matter under advisement, and issued a n order denying the motion on J une 4. The g rant or de nial of a motion to disqualify is reviewa

bl e by mandamus. In re Drak

e , 19 5 S. W.3 d 2 32 , 2 34 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , ori g. proce e din g ). Ma nd amus re lie f i s
av a i l a b l e o n l y i f t h e t r i a l c o u rta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o ni ng r an t i n g o r d e n yi n g t h e m o t i o nt o d i s qu a l i f y.04
- 08
- 00 46 4- CV

T he D i sci p l i nary R ul es ar e no t co nt roll i ng as st and ards gove rni ng m o t i o ns t o d i squali f y . T hey ser ve, how ever, 2 a s g u id e line s tha t ar ticu la te c o n sid e ra tio n s re le v a n t t o the m e rits o f suc h m o tio n s. D r ake , 195 S. W
. 3d a t 235.

- 3- In re Butler , 987 S.W .2d 221, 223-24 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 1999, orig . proce eding ). A trial cour

t does not abuse its discre tion if the court base s its decision on conflicting evidenc e and some evidenc e supports the t rial court’s decision. In re Barbe r , 982 S.W .2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998). Appellate c ourts may not resolve disputed fa ct issues in a mandamus procee ding. Ho ok s v . F ou rth Cou rt o f A pp e als , 808 S.W .2d 56, 60 (Tex. 1991). “‘D isqualification is a

s ev er e r emedy .’” Drake , 1 9 5 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 3 5 (q u o t i n g Spears v. Fo ur th C ou rt o f A pp e als , 797 S.W .2d 654, 656 (Tex. 1990)). Ac cording ly , trial courts must “adhe re to an exacting standard when conside ring [such] motions.” Id. ; Cimar r o n A g r i c., L td. v. Guitar Holding Co., L .P. , 2 09 S.W. 3d 197, 20 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 06 , n o p e t.) . Apa rt y mov ingto di s qu a l i f y c an n o tr e l y

u p o nc o n c l u s o r

y s t a t e m e n t s ; t h e p art y

m u s tp r o v i d e t h e t r i a l c o u rtw ith sufficie nt information so that th e court c an eng ag e in a pa instaking a naly sis of the fac ts. J.K. & Su sieL. W

ad le yRe se ar c h I ns t. & Bloo d B an k

v . M orris , 776 S.W .2d 271, 278 (Tex. App.—Dallas 19 89 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ). “ ‘Whil e a mo van t ne e d n ot d ivu lg e any c on fi de nc e s, he mus t de lin e a te with spe cificity the subject matter, issues and cause s of action prese nted in [the] f o rm er repr esentation.’” Ghidoni v. Stone Oak , Inc. , 966 S.W .2d 573, 579 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, p et
. d en i ed ) ( qu o t i n g W

adley , 776 S.W .2d at 278). L iberty Mutual based its motion to di squalify on Rules 1
. 0 9 (a)(3) a

nd 1.09(a) (2) of

the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedur e. Rule 1.09(a) (3) pr ovides that a lawy er who repr esente d a

2
c lie nt i n a pr ior matte r s ha ll n ot r e pr e se nt a no the r c lie nt i n a

matter a dv e rs e to t

he fo rm e r c lie nt i f the re prese ntation is the same or a substa n t i all y

related matter. T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L04
- 08
- 00 46 4- CV

- 4- C O N D U CT 1. 09 (a )( 3) . T o s ho w that th e matte rs are “ su bs tanti a lly

re late d, ” the mov ing pa

rt y mus t prove the exis tence of a pr ior attorney -client re lationship in which the fac tual matters involved we re so relate d to the fac ts alleg ed in the pendingaction that it cre ates a g enuine threat that confidenc es
reve aled to the pa

rty ’s forme r coun s el wi l l be divulge d to its current oppone nt. Cimarron Agricultural , 2 0 9 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 0 2 ( ci t i n g Coker , 765 S.W .2d at 400). Superf icial re semblance s amongleg al issues do not rise to t he leve l of a substantial re lationship where the re is no indication that the fa cts in the curr ent ac tion are substantially related to the fa cts in prior suits. Id. L iberty Mutu al p lace s g reat relianc e on In re Butler , 987 S.W .2d at 226-27, whe re a n
a tto rn e y re pr esen te d a

n in sura nc e c arr ie r i n a

duty to d e fe nd

c a se and the n r e pr e se nte d a

pa rt y adver se to the ca

rrier in a duty

to d ef en d case. The tria l court found that the matters wer e “substantially related” and g rante d the m otion to dis qualify
. Id. I n rea chingthis decision, the trial court c onsidered in c am e ra evidenc e indicatingthat the lawy er pe rfor med a “ signific ant amount of work” on the prior law suit including direc t communications betwee n the attorne y and the c arr ier detailing the bac kg round of the lawsuit and evaluating liability . The Butler court noted that the trial court’s disqualific ation order involved resolution of fa ctual issues that it would not be proper for a n appellate court to disturb in a mandamu s p ro ce ed i n g. Id. Although the re w ere some fac tual dis tin c tio ns be tw e e n th e two mat ter s all e g e d to ra ise the c on fl ic t, t he c ourt of a pp e a ls h e ld t

hat, based on the evid ence pre sented, “ it was not unrea sonable for the trial cour

t to conclude that the [t wo lawsuits] dealt with subst antially related matters.” Id. at 226. The c ourt of appe als in Butler appropr iately

limit ed its review

to w h ether , based on the evidenc e, the tria l court could re asonably have granted the mot ion to dis qu a lif y . Th e is su e this04
- 08
- 00 46 4- CV

- 5- Court fa c e s is wh e the r, on

the re c or d in

thi s ma nd amus pr oc e e din g , th e tr ia l c ourt c ou ld r e a so na

bly have denied the motion. S ee Ghidoni , 966 S.W .2d at 579-80; W adley , 7 7 6 S. W. 2 d

a t 2 7 8
. We
cann otsay

th at t he o verl ap o f cau ses of act io n bet ween th e mat ter s Den ni s wor kedon whi le a t V &E and the cu rre nt matter conc lusively establish that those matters a re “ substantially

related” to the
c ur re nt s uit su c h th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ha d n o d isc re tio n b ut t o g ra nt L ibe rt y Mu tua l’ s mo tio n to disqualify
. Drake , 195 S.W .3d at 226. We conclude that the trial cour t could rea sonably

have de te rm ine d th a t D e nn is’ s p ri or re pr e se ntatio n

o f L i b e rt y Mu tua l di d n ot i nv olv e matte rs su bs tanti a lly related to the cur

rent suit. Coker , 765 S.W .2d at 400. Turningto L iberty

Mutual’s other g round for disqualification, Disciplinary Rule 1.09(a) (2) require s disqualification if an attorney repr esents a c urre nt client in a matter a dverse to the former client if the re prese ntation in r ea s o n ab l e p robability will involve a violation of Rule 1.05, which preve nts unauthorized disseminat i o n o f confide ntial information. T EX . D I S C I PL I NAR Y R. P R OF ’ L C O N D U CT 1.05, 1.09(a) (2). The evidenc e as to whe ther De nnis rece ived conf idential information
as a r esult of his prior represe ntation of L iberty Mutual is disput ed. Drake , 195 S.W .3d at 237. Ac c or din g ly , w e c ann ot s ay the tr ia l court a bu se d its disc re tio n in denying the mot ion a s to L ibe rt

y Mutual’s Rule 1.09(a) (2) g rounds. Id. ; Butler , 987 S.W .2d at 226-27. For these re asons, the petition for wr it of mandamus is denied.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice