Opinion ID: 1755033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Appointment of Special Master

Text: Respondent next contends in Point of Error III that the Special Master was not properly appointed. Pursuant to its own procedural rules, the Supreme Court shall appoint a special master within ten days of its receipt of the request by the Commission. TEX.R.REM'L/RET. JUDGES, Rule 10(c)(2). By letter dated May 19, 1997, the Commission requested that the Supreme Court appoint a special master in the instant case. Judge McGregor was appointed as Special Master by order dated June 5, 1997. There is no dispute that the request was not formally file-stamped, nor is there any evidence in the record as to when the request was actually received by the Supreme Court. Counsel for Respondent argues that absent evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court should be deemed to have received the request on the date that he received it, that being May 22, and that because fourteen days elapsed between the request for and the date of appointment, the proceedings below should never have occurred. He stops short of suggesting that the untimely appointment deprived the Special Master or this Review Tribunal of jurisdiction to consider the charges against Respondent. We broadly interpret Respondent's complaint to be that strict compliance must be demonstrated because of mandatory rather than directory language in the procedural rules. There is neither a constitutional nor statutory requirement concerning the time parameters for appointing the special master. Instead, the Supreme Court has promulgated procedural rules to facilitate judicial discipline and to expedite formal proceedings. These rules serve to protect the judge, the public, and the spirit which underscores our scheme of the administration of justice. Neither the judge nor the public stands to benefit from undue delay. We note that the Supreme Court has often applied a rule of statutory interpretation in situations substantially identical to the one here: There is no absolute test by which it may be determined whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory. The fundamental rule is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. Although the word `shall' is generally construed to be mandatory, it may be and frequently is held to be merely directory. In determining whether the Legislature intended the particular provision to be mandatory or merely directory, consideration should be given to the entire act, its nature and object, and the consequences that would follow from each construction. Provisions which are not of the essence of the thing to be done, but which are included for the purpose of promoting the proper, orderly and prompt conduct of business, are not generally regarded as mandatory. If the statute directs, authorizes or commands an act to be done within a certain time, the absence of words restraining the doing thereof afterwards or stating the consequences of failure to act within the time specified, may be considered as a circumstance tending to support a directory construction. [Emphasis added]. Schepps v. Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, 652 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1983) (quoting Chisholm v. Bewley Mills, 155 Tex. 400, 287 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Tex.1956)). Our analysis would stop here but for the fact that Rule 1(k) defines shall as mandatory and may as permissive. TEX. R.REM'L/RET. JUDGES, Rule 1(k). It thus appears to us that the Supreme Court has chosen to apply a mandatory construction to the timetable for the appointment of the Special Master. In the instant cause, the Supreme Court failed to comply with its mandate and further failed to implement a filing policy that would enable a party to removal proceedings to ascertain the precise date on which the timetable commenced. While we cannot precisely determine that the Supreme Court received the request on May 22, 1997, we do believe it reasonable to presume that the request was received more than ten days prior to the appointment of the Special Master. Accordingly, the Special Master was improperly appointed. TEX.R.REM'L/RET. JUDGES, Rule 10(c)(2). Once again, however, our analysis cannot end here. Rule 10(d)(1) provides that the special master shall proceed with the hearing as nearly as may be according to the rules of procedure governing the trial of civil causes in this state, subject to the provisions of Rule 5 [governing the issuance, service, and return of subpoenas]. TEX.R.REM'L/RET. JUDGES, Rule 10(d)(1). See In re Thoma, 873 S.W.2d at 485. We are also directed to the TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE with regard to the form and content of briefs, and the procedures for oral argument. TEX. R.REM'L/REM. JUDGES, Rule 12(e) and (g). We construe these rules to require our reliance upon both bodies of procedural rules except to the extent that language in the RULES FOR REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES requires a different result. Accordingly, we conclude that the harmless error rule applies. In re Thoma, 873 S.W.2d at 488, 513. TEX.R.APP.P. Rule 44.1 [3] provides that [n]o judgment may be reversed on appeal on the ground that the trial court made an error of law unless the court of appeals concludes that the error complained of: (1) probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment; or (2) probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals. The obvious purpose of this rule traces back to its predecessors and was enunciated by the Supreme Court as abolishing the former rule of presumed prejudice whereby the prevailing party had the burden of proving that the complaining party was not prejudiced by the error. Lorusso v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 603 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.1980), citing Calbert and Perin, Is the Castle Crumbling? Harmless Error Revisited, 20 S.TEX.L.J., 1 (1979); Calvert, The Development of the Doctrine of Harmless Error in Texas, 31 TEX.L .REV. 1 (1952). The rule recognizes that a litigant is not entitled to a perfect trial for, indeed, few trials are perfect. In recognition of this fact, the harmless error rule establishes a sound and common sense policy of not reversing a judgment unless the error or errors can be said to have contributed in a substantial way to bring about the adverse judgment. Lorusso, 603 S.W.2d at 819-20. Respondent has not established that he suffered any harm by the four-day delay in the appointment of the Special Master. In fact, Respondent was granted a continuance from the original hearing date due to the confusion surrounding the appointment. Therefore, we conclude that while error, the untimely appointment of the Special Master was harmless. Consideration of Allegations in Item 1 The issues contained in Item 1 (The Grupe Incident) of the Notice of Formal Proceedings are the same issues that were the basis of the sanctions imposed against Respondent in February, 1996 arising from informal proceedings. In Point of Error IV, Respondent argues that the sanction was imposed pursuant to a final order and that the issues may not be revisited by the Commission. We agree. We turn first, however, to a discussion of the distinctions between informal and formal proceedings. [4]