Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1998, Ron Mendoza of DCM was hired to defend Star Shuttle in a personal injury suit arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving a Star Shuttle employee (the “Clay suit”). In August 2003, Advantage sued SWB for breach of contract and other related claims based on the alleged omission of Advantage’s advertisement from the 2001 Greater Austin Yellow Pages Directory. The original petition named Advantage as the sole plaintiff, but mentioned within the body of the pleading that Star Shuttle was a related entity which had also ordered advertising in the Austin Yellow Pages. In September 2003, Ricardo Cedillo and David Lopez of DCM were retained to defend SWB in the breach of contract suit by Advantage. DCM conducted a standard conflicts check and determined that the firm had never represented Advantage. DCM filed an answer on behalf of SWB and began conducting discovery. A series of informal discussions ensued between counsel for Advantage and DCM regarding a potential conflict of interest; however, the parties were unable to reach an agreed resolution. On Oct. 27, 2003, Advantage filed an amended original petition adding Star Shuttle as a named plaintiff in the breach of contract action. In her cover letter to DCM, lead counsel for Advantage stated that Star Shuttle was added as an additional plaintiff for the express purpose of creating a conflict of interest on the face of the pleadings. On Nov. 12, 2003, Advantage filed a motion to disqualify DCM from representing SWB based on DCM’s concurrent representation of Star Shuttle. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Advantage’s motion to disqualify DCM. SWB subsequently filed this petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order of disqualification. HOLDING:Conditionally granted. Assuming, without deciding, that Advantage proved that Mendoza’s representation reasonably appeared to be adversely limited by DCM’s representation of SWB in violation of Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06(b)(2), the court finds that Advantage failed to prove that it suffered actual prejudice as a result of DCM’s concurrent representation. The record does not show how a disclosure to DCM of confidential information concerning Advantage’s operating procedures would prejudice Advantage in the SWB breach of contract suit. Further, the record does not reveal the nature of the particular item of confidential information alluded to by Fein. At most, Advantage showed a potential for prejudice if confidential information was disclosed which might be used against it in the SWB suit. The mere allegation of potential prejudice is insufficient to warrant the extreme remedy of disqualification. Ghidoni v. Stone Oak Inc., 966 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. App. � San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). The court finds that Advantage failed to meet its burden of proof on actual prejudice and the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying DCM under Rule 1.06(b)(2). OPINION:Speedlin, J.; Green, Duncan and Speedlin, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.