X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Richard F. Gerry and Corina M. Gerry are husband and wife. Corina filed for divorce on Oct. 24, 2003. Through his attorney of record, Richard filed an answer and an original counterpetition for divorce. Richard then filed a motion to substitute as his attorney of record Robert Alderman of Zeleskey, Cornelius, Hallmark, Roper & Hicks. Corina filed an objection and response in which she asserted that the Zeleskey firm had a conflict of interest and should be disqualified from representing Richard in the divorce. More particularly, she alleged that, prior to filing the divorce, she met with an attorney at the Zeleskey firm to discuss possible legal representation in the divorce and divulged confidential information during the meeting. At a hearing on the matter, Amy Long testified that a time sheet entry showed she met with Corina for .7 hour in September 2003 in the Zeleskey firm offices. At the time, she was a new associate with the Zeleskey firm. Long specifically recalled that Corina came in to talk about a divorce. She remembered that, during their meeting, Corina asked about filing the divorce in another state and also remembered that Corina said her husband had been in jail. Long could not recall any other details about their conversation, but stated that she left Corina with the impression that she should call back if she wanted the firm to represent her. When asked whether Corina could have shared other facts with her that she did not recall, Long answered, “I’m sure she could have.” She also stated it was “entirely possible” that Corina provided her with confidential information during their meeting. Long testified that she did not recall getting any documents from Corina and did not have any documents. According to Corina, she and Long discussed facts and issues related to Corina’s divorce. When asked to generally describe what she told Long, Corina replied, “Well, I explained the facts of the case up to that point for myself that were relevant and I provided her with documents that I had, letters my husband had written and things of that nature and promise[s] that were made. Just anything that was relevant up to that point.” She stated that she thought someone from the Zeleskey firm “would be getting back” to her about representing her. Corina had no further communication with anyone from the Zeleskey firm and was represented by other counsel in the divorce. Jack Sinz, judge of the County Court-at-Law, Nacogdoches County, denied Richard’s motion to substitute counsel by order dated April 22, 2005. On June 21, 2005, respondent signed an order nunc pro tunc, which stated that Richard’s motion was denied “based upon disqualification of said counsel.” This original mandamus proceeding followed. HOLDING:Denied. Richard concedes that meeting with a prospective client is a ground for disqualification where the prospective client shares confidential information or an attorney-client relationship is created. It is undisputed that no attorney-client relationship arose from Corina’s meeting with Long. Therefore, the issue before the trial court was whether Corina shared confidential information during the meeting. Richard contends that the evidence does not support respondent’s conclusion that Corina shared confidential information with Long. Therefore, Richard concludes, respondent abused his discretion by concluding that Alderman was disqualified and denying the motion to substitute Alderman as his counsel. The court disagrees. Corina consulted with Long about possible legal representation in a divorce action, and Richard now seeks to hire Alderman in the same case. Long and Alderman are attorneys with the Zeleskey firm. Consequently, Alderman cannot represent Richard if Long received confidential information from Corina during their September 2003 meeting. Long testified that her meeting with Corina lasted .7 hour. Corina testified that, during the meeting, she related anything relevant to the issues in the case and provided documents and letters to someone at the Zeleskey firm for copying. Long remembered little of what she and Corina discussed during their meeting and admitted that Corina could have shared facts relating to the case that she did not recall. Long also admitted it was “entirely possible” that Corina could have provided her with confidential information. Long further testified that she had no personal knowledge of Corina’s giving documents to anyone at the Zeleskey firm, but could not categorically refute Corina’s assertion. From this testimony, respondent reasonably could have concluded that Corina divulged confidential information during her meeting with Long. Thus, respondent did not abuse his discretion in denying Richard’s motion to substitute counsel. The court denies the petition for writ of mandamus. OPINION:James T. Worthen, C.J.; Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

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.