Court Opinion

ID: 9755505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:39:43.318488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:08.038867
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse this judgment because the trial court did not appoint Tolbert an attorney. *374The focus of the opinion is on why Tolbert did not timely file the expert report. The focus should be on why he was unable to obtain a lawyer.
First, the trial court never denied the request for appointment of an attorney. This request, along with several other motions, was set for a hearing by telephone. The trial court only ruled by written order on Tolbert’s motion for extension of time to file an expert report. The order commenced with, “Be it remembered that on this day came to be heard Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to File an Expert Report ...” and concluded with the phrase, “The Court denies all relief not expressly granted in this order.” The phrase, “this order,” only applies to the motion for extension of time, not anything else possibly raised at the telephone hearing. The request for counsel was not fully addressed at the hearing. This is confirmed by Tolbert’s subsequent letter wondering whether the court had sufficient information to rule due to the Attorney General’s deflection of the issue.
Second, and of far greater concern, this is an ordinary civil case. The issue as framed shows nothing unique about his claim, i.e. where “public and private interests are such that the administration of justice may be best served by appointing a lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex.1996) (orig.proceeding). It also shows no effort by Tol-bert to obtain his own lawyer. This case is no different than any other poor client trying to sue a doctor for malpractice. Tolbert may, in fact, have more time to pursue his claim than the average “Joe” who may have a claim but is also trying to work to make ends meet. This case simply does not meet the requirements of the Government Code and case law for the appointment of an attorney to represent Tolbert at taxpayers’ expense.
The majority holds the trial court erred and orders the trial court to appoint Tol-bert counsel. Because the trial court never ruled on the motion and eyen if it denied the motion, it certainly did not abuse its discretion, I respectfully, but strongly, dissent.