## Facts

- Malpractice and wrongful-death plaintiffs sued a hospital and physicians in Texas state court.
- The hospital was represented by defense counsel; plaintiffs were represented by a separate firm.
- A legal assistant previously employed by defense counsel worked on the hospital’s case and had access to confidential information and work product.
- The assistant later took employment with plaintiffs’ counsel while the same case was pending.
- At plaintiffs’ counsel, the assistant performed tasks on the same matter (including handling case materials and working with discovery-related documents).
- Plaintiffs’ counsel implemented only incomplete and delayed screening steps; any restrictions were not timely and did not prevent the assistant’s participation.
- The hospital moved to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs’ counsel based on the assistant’s conflict and the risk to confidences.
- The trial court denied disqualification, and the hospital sought mandamus relief.

## Issues

1. When a law firm hires a legal assistant who previously worked on the same matter for opposing counsel, what screening steps are required to avoid disqualification?
2. Whether a firm must be disqualified when the conflicted legal assistant actually works on the same matter at the new firm and screening is ineffective or untimely.
3. Whether the trial court’s denial of disqualification was a clear abuse of discretion remediable by mandamus due to the lack of an adequate appellate remedy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief.
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs’ counsel.
- The Court directed the trial court to grant the hospital’s motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs’ counsel.
- The Court stated the writ would issue only if the trial court failed to comply.

## Legal Principles

- Non-lawyer staff owe duties of confidentiality comparable to lawyers; movement of support staff cannot compromise client confidences.
- A firm hiring a legal assistant who worked on the same matter for opposing counsel may avoid disqualification only by (1) instructing the assistant not to work on the matter and (2) taking timely, effective “other reasonable steps” to prevent participation and information flow.
- “Other reasonable steps” require concrete, enforceable screening measures, not informal, partial, or after-the-fact efforts; effective screening commonly includes written instructions, firmwide notice, and segregation of physical and electronic access.
- When a conflicted legal assistant actually participates in the same matter at the new firm and screening is ineffective, disqualification is required to protect confidences and the fairness of the proceedings.
- Mandamus is appropriate to correct an erroneous denial of disqualification where confidential information may taint strategy and the harm cannot be adequately cured by appeal.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court required disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel because the firm hired a defense legal assistant who had worked on the case and then allowed her to work on the same matter without timely, effective screening; mandamus relief was warranted because the resulting risk to confidences and trial fairness lacked an adequate appellate remedy.


In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2010)