Court Opinion

ID: 9649085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:54.859489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:51.341929
License: Public Domain

Justice ENOCH,
concurring.
I only take issue with the Court’s approach to this matter. The phrase “making a mountain out of a mole hill” comes to mind.
This Court is empowered to determine the qualifications of persons authorized to practice law in this state’s courts.1 With that power comes the necessary ancillary power to stop the unauthorized practice of law. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is simply an entity that has the standing necessary to litigate whether one is practicing law without authority.2 The UPL Committee has no independent regulatory power. Its power is that of any other plaintiff — it can investigate whether to sue, and can bring a lawsuit. As well, Nolo Press, if sued, would have the power of any other defendant — it could choose to defend and have discovery. If the UPL Committee decides to sue and if Nolo Press decides to defend, a court will decide the case. This is the entire matter. Yet the Court jumps the gun by entertaining Nolo Press’s request for a writ of mandamus and elevating this case with the mantra of open records.
Why the Court jumps the gun troubles me. I cannot imagine under any similar circumstance that the Court would enable a potential defendant to pretermit a plaintiffs suit and the orderly application of the discovery rules through a mandamus action. This is particularly so because the legislature has empowered potential defendants to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts and the power of discovery through the device of declaratory judgment3 — a device, by the way, that Nolo Press evidently knows how to use.4
It also troubles me that we use this one case to alter an administrative rule that has been in effect for thirteen years. And we do so without any comment on the proposed changes from the UPL Committee members or any other interested persons. Nolo Press certainly is not the only one with an interest in the operation of the UPL Committee. Furthermore, I do not think it’s fair to say that our comment period for Administrative Rule 12, which generally deals with judicial records, was fair notice that our previous specific order concerning the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee was to be changed.5 In fact, I’m confident the Court didn’t even know that that order was under consideration. So how could our committee know at the time that this order was being reconsidered?
I agree that the request for mandamus should be dismissed because this Court doesn’t have jurisdiction. While I also agree with much of what the Court says, the opinion serves only to build a mole hill into a mountain. The writ should be dismissed without further comment.
*783APPENDIX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Mise. Docket No. 99-9082
IN RE PETITION OF NOLO PRESS, INC.
TO AMEND RULES GOVERNING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE
PER CURIAM
In Cause No. 98-0724, styled In re Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc., relator Nolo Press, Inc., a publisher of self-help legal books and computer software, has petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the State Bar of Texas to produce certain documents and information, and alternatively, for clarification or modification of this Court’s September 16, 1986 Order1 that limits disclosure of Committee records. In today’s opinion in that case we deny mandamus relief and, for reasons there explained, conclude that Nolo Press’s alternative request for clarification or modification of the 1986 Order should be treated as an administrative matter.2 We here address that matter.
The 1986 Order makes all the UPL Committee’s records confidential. Before considering modifications to this Order our usual procedure would be to call for comments from the Committee and all interested persons. That procedure has already been served last year, however, by the Judicial Council’s lengthy study and several public hearings regarding disclosure of certain records and information possessed by courts and agencies in the Judicial Department. Although the study did not focus on the UPL Committee, all persons interested in the confidentiality and disclosure of records of all judicial agencies were invited to comment. The Court received no comments specifically related to the UPL Committee. Based on the Council’s recommendations and public comments, the Court promulgated proposed Rule 12 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, subject to comments received prior to its effective date of April 1, 1999.3 After receiving additional comments and making other changes, the Court has promulgated Rule 12.4
The UPL Committee is a “judicial agency” as defined by Rule 12.2(b), but because this Court’s 1986 Order makes all the Committee’s records confidential, Rule 12 does not apply to the Committee.5 Rule 12 is designed to protect a judicial agency’s records from public disclosure when its function would be compromised, and otherwise to make records available to the public on request. We see no reason why this rule should not apply to the UPL Committee as it would to any other judicial agency; indeed, one goal of Rule 12 is a uniform treatment for judicial records throughout the judicial department. Since the UPL Committee has no adjudicative power, all its records would be judicial records as defined by Rule 12.2(d).
Nolo Press has requested four categories of information and records: (1) the names of the UPL Committee’s subcommittee members; (2) the dates, times, locations, agendas, and minutes of past and future meetings; (3) copies of the Commit*784tee’s internal rules and procedures; and (4) all internal documents related to the Subcommittee’s investigation of Nolo Press. We cannot, of course, decide how Rule 12 would apply to specific records of the UPL Committee. We have not reviewed the Committee’s records, nor is it for this Court to make such determinations in the first instance. Rule 12 provides a procedure for applying and enforcing its provisions. Rather, our concern is whether there is something about the UPL Committee’s operations or records in general that should require treatment different from that afforded other judicial agencies whose functions must also be conducted with a degree of confidentiality. Neither Nolo Press’s request, nor any factor considered by the Judicial Council of which we are aware, suggests that the UPL Committee must be treated uniquely.
Accordingly, we conclude that our 1986 Order should not insulate the UPL Committee’s records from disclosure under Rule 12. Vacating that Order will place the UPL Committee under Rule 12.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court’s September 16, 1986 Order relating to the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is vacated.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1999.
/s/ Thomas R. Phillips Thomas R. Phillips, Chief Justice
/s/ Nathan L. Hecht Nathan L. Hecht, Justice
/s/ Craig T. Enoch Craig T. Enoch, Justice
/s/ Priscilla R. Owen Priscilla R. Owen, Justice
/s/ James A. Baker James A. Baker, Justice
/s/ Greg Abbott Greg Abbott, Justice
/s/ Deborah G. Hankinson Deborah G. Hankinson, Justice
/s/ Harriet O’Neill Harriet O’Neill, Justice
/s/ Alberto R. Gonzales Alberto R. Gonzales, Justice
APPENDIX I
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Supplemental Order to the November 17, 1980 Order
Adopting Rules for he Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee
WHEREAS, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas; and,
WHEREAS, the Committee currently operates pursuant to rules considered and approved and ordered adopted by the Supreme Court, in banc, in chambers of November 17,1980; and
"WHEREAS, The Committee in its work discharges its obligations on behalf of the Supreme Court;
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the rule adopted as “Exhibit A” and attached hereto and incorporated by reference by adopted by the Court, in banc, in chambers, this 16 th day of September, 1986.
s/ John L. Hill, Chief Justice
Sears McGee, Justice
Robert M. Campbell, Justice
Franklin S. Spears, Justice
C.L. Ray, Justice
James P. Wallace, Justice
Ted Z. Robertson, Justice
William W. Kilgarlin, Justice
EXHIBIT “A”UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE
Rules No._
Section 12.
*785Said Committee shall keep all records, documents and other information of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee and its subcommittees (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Committee”) that are in its possession for the purposes of discharging its obligations in behalf of the Supreme Court confidential and shall release same only:
(1) For the Committee’s use in enforcement proceedings to eliminate the unauthorized practice of law;
(2) To satisfy all other requirements of the Committee pursuant to Tex.Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 320a-l, § 19;
(3) In response to proper requests of or to assist law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in the detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes; and
(4) In furtherance of any other orders from the Texas Supreme Court.

. See Tex. Gov't Code § 81.061; see also State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex.1994).

. See Tex Gov't Code §§ 81.103-, 104; Order Approving Rules For The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee § 2 (Tex. Nov. 17, 1980) {supra, Appendix I).

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code §§ 37.002-004.

. See Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc. v. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, No. 99-03252 (201 st Dist. Ct., Travis County, Tex., Mar. 17, 1999).

. See In re Petition of Nolo Press, Inc. to Amend Rules Governing the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, Misc. Docket No. 99-9082 (Tex. Apr. 15, 1999) (per curiam).

. Supplemental Order to the November 17, 1980 Order Adopting Rules for the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (Tex. Sept. 16, 1986) (hereinafter "1986 Order”) (infra, Appendix I).

. In re Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.1999).

. Order Approving Revisions to the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, Mise. Docket No. 98-9170 (Tex., Oct. 8, 1998), reprinted in 61 Tex Bar J. 994 (Nov. 1998).

. Order of Final Approval of Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration and of Canon 3(C)(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Misc. Docket No. 99-9058 (Tex., Mar. 24, 1999), reprinted in 62 Tex Bar J._(May 1999).

. TexR. Jud. Admin. 12.3(a).