in Re Chad Allen Bell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 24, 2013
• Docket: 09-13-00450-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00450-CV ____________________

IN RE CHAD ALLEN BELL

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for writ of mandamus, Chad Allen Bell seeks to compel the trial

court to vacate its order of September 17, 2013, which denied Bell’s motion to

disqualify counsel for the real parties in interest, Jeffrey Durham and Pamela

Durham. Bell seeks an order from us requiring the trial court to disqualify counsel

for the Durhams. The parties dispute whether a disqualification occurs when an

associate, who never participated on a case where his employer represented the

defendant, accepts employment by another firm that represents the plaintiff. After

considering evidence, the trial court concluded that the associate’s change of

employment did not disqualify the associate’s new firm from representing the

1 Durhams. After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude relator

has not established an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See In re Guar. Ins.

Servs., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 130, 133-34 (Tex. 2011); Henderson v. Floyd, 891

S.W.2d 252 (Tex. 1995). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and

motion for temporary relief are denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered October 24, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.