## Facts

- Joe and Carol Mitcham sued TXU U.S. Holdings Company (TXU) alleging injuries from asbestos exposure.
- The Mitchams were represented by Waters and Kraus (Waters).
- TXU was represented by Burford and Ryburn, L.L.P. (Burford).
- Gayle Mortola-Strasser worked at Burford during law school while Burford represented TXU in asbestos-related matters.
- After becoming a lawyer, Mortola-Strasser worked for Waters.
- When Mortola-Strasser joined Waters, she signed an agreement stating that neither she nor any attorneys at Waters would participate in claims against TXU involving asbestos exposure.
- Mortola-Strasser later left Waters.
- Shortly after Mortola-Strasser’s departure, Waters undertook the Mitchams’ asbestos lawsuit against TXU.
- TXU moved in the trial court to disqualify the entire Waters firm based on Mortola-Strasser’s prior connection to TXU’s counsel and the asserted risk that TXU confidential information could be used against it.
- The trial court denied TXU’s motion to disqualify.
- TXU sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals to prevent Waters from continuing to represent the Mitchams.

## Issues

1. Whether Mortola-Strasser’s prior work at TXU’s counsel (Burford) created a conflict in the Mitchams’ asbestos case against TXU under the substantial-relationship/confidential-information analysis for former-client conflicts.
2. Whether, given Mortola-Strasser’s association with Waters, TXU was entitled to firm-wide disqualification of Waters based on imputed knowledge of TXU confidential information.
3. Whether the “nonparticipation” agreement and any attempted separation of Mortola-Strasser from TXU-related matters could avoid disqualification in this private-firm lateral-move setting.
4. Whether mandamus was available to correct the trial court’s denial of disqualification (clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal).

## Decision

- The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying TXU’s motion to disqualify.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying disqualification and to enter an order disqualifying Waters from representing the Mitchams against TXU.
- The writ would issue only if the trial court failed to comply.

## Legal Principles

- Disqualification may be required when a lawyer’s prior work for an opposing party (or access to that party’s confidential information) is substantially related to the later dispute, creating a risk that confidential information could be used to the former client’s disadvantage.
- In Texas disqualification law, once a lawyer is disqualified based on a former-client conflict, the conflict is generally imputed to the lawyer’s firm based on a presumption that lawyers in the same firm share client confidences.
- Private-firm screening or “nonparticipation” arrangements generally do not defeat imputed disqualification in Texas in the way they may in some other jurisdictions or in some government-lawyer contexts.
- Mandamus is an available remedy to review disqualification rulings because the harm from allowing conflicted counsel to remain (or from wrongly denying a party its chosen counsel) may not be repairable through appeal after final judgment.

## Conclusion

In *In re TXU U.S. Holdings Co.*, TXU obtained mandamus relief after the trial court refused to disqualify Waters in an asbestos-exposure suit brought by the Mitchams. The court of appeals concluded the circumstances surrounding Mortola-Strasser’s prior work at TXU’s counsel and her later association with Waters required firm-wide disqualification under Texas imputation rules, and that mandamus was appropriate to protect confidentiality interests that a post-judgment appeal could not adequately cure.


In re TXU U.S. Holdings Co., 110 S.W.3d 62 (2002)