## Facts

- Mary and Gary Mabray sought help from attorney Brenda Keen in connection with dissolving their marriage.
- Keen, Mary, and Gary signed a “cooperative law dispute resolution agreement” describing a voluntary, cooperative process aimed at reaching an agreed divorce without full adversarial litigation.
- The cooperative process did not result in a final resolution of the divorce.
- After the cooperative process failed, Keen continued to represent Gary in the divorce matter.
- Mary objected and sought to disqualify Keen, arguing that Keen’s continued representation violated a Texas collaborative-law statute that, in Mary’s view, required a lawyer who participated in a collaborative-law matter to withdraw and be disqualified from later representing either party in contested proceedings.
- Gary responded that the parties did not sign a statutory collaborative-law agreement; they signed a cooperative-law agreement, which did not impose the statutory collaborative-law disqualification requirement.
- The trial court agreed with Gary, treated the parties’ agreement as cooperative-law rather than statutory collaborative-law, and denied Mary’s request to disqualify Keen.
- Mary sought appellate relief challenging the refusal to disqualify Keen.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by refusing to disqualify attorney Keen on the theory that the parties’ cooperative-law dispute resolution agreement should be treated as a Texas statutory collaborative-law agreement requiring attorney withdrawal and disqualification?
2. Was extraordinary relief warranted to overturn the trial court’s refusal to disqualify counsel?

## Decision

- The court denied Mary’s request for extraordinary relief and left the trial court’s ruling in place.
- The court agreed that the parties’ agreement was a cooperative-law agreement, not a statutory collaborative-law agreement governed by the Texas collaborative-law statute Mary relied on.
- Because the statutory collaborative-law disqualification rule did not apply, the trial court did not err in allowing Keen to continue representing Gary.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney disqualification is a severe remedy and is not granted unless a clear legal basis requires it.
- Texas collaborative-law disqualification rules apply when the parties enter a collaborative-law agreement that meets the statute’s requirements; parties cannot impose that statutory regime by label alone.
- When the agreement at issue is a cooperative-law agreement rather than a statutory collaborative-law agreement, the collaborative-law statute’s withdrawal/disqualification provisions do not control.
- A trial court has discretion in ruling on a motion to disqualify counsel; appellate relief requires a showing that the court’s ruling was legally erroneous under the governing agreement and law.

## Conclusion

In re Mabray held that the trial court did not err in refusing to disqualify attorney Keen after the cooperative divorce process failed, because the parties’ written agreement was a cooperative-law dispute resolution agreement rather than a statutory collaborative-law agreement that would have triggered mandatory withdrawal and disqualification under Texas collaborative-law law; accordingly, extraordinary relief was denied and Keen could continue representing Gary.


In re Mabray, 2010 WL 3448198 (2010)