Recusal and Disqualification Case Law (Tex.App.-Houston 2006)(Tex. 2006)

Court Grants Mandamus to Reverse Disqualification of Attorney

In Re Bennet (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] August 22, 2006)(per curiam)(mandamus granted)
[professional ethics, attorney disqualification, conflict of interest, family relationships, representation of both spouses
prior to divorce]
MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Hudson, Fowler and Seymore
14-06-00537-CV In Re: Carrie Beth Bennett
Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County (Judge K. Randall Hufstetler)
(“Because Jeremy did not show that Allen’s testimony was necessary to establish an essential element in the divorce
action and the trial court found there was no attorney-client relationship regarding the lease on Jeremy’s separate
property, recognizing the severity of disqualification, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of mandamus
directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Allen as counsel for relator. The writ will issue only if the trial
court fails to vacate its order.”)

Texas Supreme Court Tightens Rules Governing Mandatory Recusal of Appeals Court Judges

March 17, 2006 - Judicial Disqualification Texas Supreme Court rules that appeals court justice should
have removed herself from case because of prior association with law firm representing a party in the
case.

Tesco Am., Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc. (Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)(Court's opinion by Justice Brister)
04-0269 TESCO AMERICAN, INC. D/B/A TESCO/WILLIAMSEN v. STRONG INDUSTRIES, INC. AND BROOKS
STRONG; from Harris County; 1st district (01‑01‑00086‑CV, 129 SW3d 606, 02‑05‑04)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion
Majority opinion by Justice Scott A. Brister Tesco v. Strong (Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)(Brister)
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht

Case Dismissed Per Agreement of the Parties On Remand to First Court of Appeals
F.S. New Products and Tesco v. Strong Industries (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 30, 2006)(per curiam)
DISMISS APPEAL: [joint motion to dismiss] Per Curiam
Before Justices Taft, Keyes and Hanks
01-01-00086-CV F.S. New Products, Inc. and Tesco/Williamsen, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc.
Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County
Supreme Court Opinion: See Tesco Am., Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 448, 2006 WL 662740, at *5
(Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)(supreme court remanded for redetermination without participation of disqualified justice)

In Re Heany (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 7, 2006)(per curiam)
[mandamus to set aside disqualification order denied]
DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
01-06-01090-CV In re Shawn Heany
Appeal from 247th District Court of Harris County (Judge Bonnie Crane Hellums)

Judge should not have acted while motion to recuse was pending - order void

Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 10, 2007)(Nuchia)
[motion to recuse, judge's order signed while recusal motion pending void]
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Justices Nuchia, Keyes and Higley
01-06-00239-CV Peter J. Riga and Michael Easton v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County

Mandamus to Set Aside Disqualification Order Denied

In Re Heany (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 7, 2006)(per curiam)
[mandamus to set aside order disqualifying counsel, Bruce A. Baughman]
DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
01-06-01090-CV In re Shawn Heany
Appeal from 247th District Court of Harris County (Judge Bonnie Crane Hellums)

Mandamus Issued re Judge Wood's Recusal

In Re Whatley (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2006)(Seymore)
[recusal, disqualification of judge, lack of jurisdiction, mandamus granted]
MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
(Before Justices Hudson, Frost and Seymore)
14-05-01222-CV In Re: Dawn Johnson Whatley--Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County
("Because the recusal motion filed on September 9, 2005, remains pending, the orders signed by Judge Wood on
September 29, 2005, October 13, 2005, and December 14, 2005, are void. Additionally, the September 29, 2005,
order issued by Judge Wood is void because Judge Wood had no jurisdiction to enter it while the case was removed
to federal court. We conditionally grant relator's petition for writ of mandamus in part. We are confident Judge
Wood will comply with this opinion. The writ will issue only in the unlikely event he fails to do so.")

Disqualification of Attorney Who Switched Sides Sustained

In Re Budzyn (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 8, 2006)(per curiam)
[Mandamus denied re: trial court's order granting motion for disqualification against attorney based on conflict of
interest, breach of confidentiality]
DENY MOTION: Per Curiam
Before Justices Nuchia, Keyes and Hanks
01-06-00012-CV In re Teresa Budzyn
Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (Hon. Lynn Bradshaw-Hull)
("The trial court concluded that a breach of confidentiality and conflict of interest existed, and ordered Soard
disqualified").
Concurring Opinion by Justice Evelyn Keyes)
("Budzyn failed in her burden to request that the CCSI-Universal contracts submitted to the trial court be carried
forward under seal to this Court for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Without the
benefit of the complete record submitted below, this Court cannot conclude that the trial court’s conclusion to
disqualify Soard was unreasonable. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Budzyn has failed in her burden to
demonstrate a clear right to mandamus relief. See id." Accordingly, I concur in the denial of the motion for
rehearing.")

Justices Disagree On Whether Probate Court Judge Acted Properly When Asked to Recuse
Himself

In Re Easton (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 10, 2006)(Hudson)
[recusal law, writ of habeas corpus sought, contempt of court, ex parte communication with judge per email, multiple
recusal motions, did judge have authority to issue order with recusal motion pending?]
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Hudson
Before Justices Hudson, Frost and Seymore
14-06-00674-CV In Re: Michael Easton
Appeal from [Judge Wood]
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Seymore
(“I withdraw my dissenting opinion of August 10, 2006 and issue this corrected opinion. Consistent with our original
and supplemental opinions in In re Whatley, 2006 WL 1490161 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig.
proceeding), Judge Wood was required to recuse himself or request assignment of another judge in the case prior
to taking any “further action in the case.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(d). The order which is the subject of Judge Wood’
s show cause proceeding was entered on February 7, 2006, during the pendency of the September 9, 2005, motion
to recuse. The majority has drawn a fine line by implicitly concluding that Judge Wood was not taking “further action
in the case” when he signed the February 7, 2006 order. I agree with the majority that Judge Wood has the power,
inherent in his office, to deal with persons who disobey lawful orders. However, upon issuance of our original and
supplemental opinions, the order sought to be enforced was rendered void. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.”)

In re Whatley (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 8, 2006)(Seymore)
[recuse, multiple recusal motions, tertiary motion]
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Justices Hudson, Frost and Seymore
14-05-01222-CV In Re: Dawn Johnson Whatley
Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County (Judge Michael James Wood)

In re Dawn Johnson Whatley (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] June 1, 2006)(Seymore)
[recusal law, court of appeals conditionally grants writ of mandamus ordering probate judge Michael James Wood to
vacate all orders signed while the case was removed to federal court or while a motion to recuse was pending]
MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Justices Hudson, Frost and Seymore
14-05-01222-CV In Re: Dawn Johnson Whatley
Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County (Michael James Wood)
(“Because the recusal motion filed on September 9, 2005, remains pending, the orders signed by Judge Wood on
September 29, 2005, October 13, 2005, and December 14, 2005, are void. Additionally, the September 29, 2005,
order issued by Judge Wood is void because Judge Wood had no jurisdiction to enter it while the case was removed
to federal court. We conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in part and order Judge Wood to
vacate the orders signed on September 29, 2005, October 13, 2005, and December 14, 2005. We are confident
Judge Wood will comply with this opinion. The writ will issue only in the unlikely event he fails to do so.”)