Court Opinion

ID: 9674387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:28:03.279366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.382295
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
WARREN, Justice.
First, we feel compelled to expressly deny relator’s allegations that by our opinion we have branded its attorney, Karl Hoppess, an unethical practitioner and that we have castigated him. To the contrary, we are sympathetic with relator and counsel because of the hardship, inconvenience, and possible disadvantage caused by the situation.
Our opinion held that:
(1) the trial court has a duty to enforce disciplinary rules;
(2) mandamus will lie to correct a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in its enforcement of those rules; and,
(3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate relator’s attorney as the attorney of record.
We do not hold that it is a violation of the Disciplinary Rules for an attorney who has represented a client in a condemnation case in the negotiation stage to represent the client also at trial, even though “good faith” is in issue.
In this case the attorney voluntarily injected himself into the ease as a witness on a material issue, which is a violation of Disciplinary Rule 5-102.
After the trial court declined to apply an exception to DR 5-102 and removed Mr. Hoppess, and after his client agreed that Hoppess would not appear as a witness, and filed a motion to reinstate Hoppess, T.M.P.A. then declared that it would call Hoppess as a witness and resisted the motion to reinstate.
It was the trial judge’s duty to determine whether, under the facts, an exception under DR 5-101(B)(4), or DR 5-102 would apply, thus allowing Hoppess to continue *515as attorney of record. She refused to apply any of the exceptions.
In reaching its decision, the trial court necessarily had to consider the facts contained in the record and apply the law to those facts. We may not substitute our opinion for that of the trial judge unless there was an abuse of discretion or unless the trial judge erroneously applied the law to the facts.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.