Vincent Krussow v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00231-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

VINCENT KRUSSOW Appellant, v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

On August 2, 2023, acting pro se, Vincent Krussow appealed a judgment rendered against Robert G. Vela. The matter involves a complaint about Robert Vela that Krussow

2

made to the Commission of Lawyer Discipline.1 On February 6, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified Krussow that he does not have standing as a party to this appeal. See Daniels v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 142 S.W.3d 565, 571 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (providing that a complainant in a lawyer disciplinary hearing is a potential witness and not a party).; In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex. 2006) (providing that only parties of record may appeal a trial court’s judgment); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. We further notified Krussow that unless he filed a brief demonstrating standing within twenty days from the date of receipt of our letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Krussow has not responded to our letter.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1 (allowing only parties to appeal a trial court’s judgment). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.2 See id. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of June, 2024.

1 Robert Vela appeals the Commission’s decision for sanctions in a separate appeal.

2Krussow’s motion for extension of time to file brief is DENIED. Krussow’s motion to issue subpoena duces tecum to obtain pertinent documents is DENIED.