in Re: Michael E. Robinson and the Robinson Law Firm

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-22-00579-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 23, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael E. Robinson and The Robinson Law Firm petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Deylan Walker in a defamation suit. The motion to withdraw was filed in October 2021 and was heard in February 2022 but remained unresolved for an unreasonable time. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy existed, thus conditionally granting the petition. The trial stay in the underlying action will continue until the trial court acts on the withdrawal motion.

Robinson previously withdrew as counsel in an appeal due to a breakdown in communication and a conflict of interest with Walker. In the current motion to withdraw, Robinson cited irreconcilable differences and ineffective communication as reasons for his request. Walker opposed the withdrawal, alleging that Robinson was responsible for the communication issues and claiming he had not found new counsel. Walker sought $40,000 for hiring new counsel, $16,000 for legal expenses incurred, and $5,000 for future expenses, along with sanctions against Robinson. Walker later amended his opposition, asserting Robinson’s continued legal obligation to represent him under Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Robinson subsequently filed a plea in abatement and a motion for a full hearing on his withdrawal request.

Mr. Robinson argued that ongoing conflicts with Mr. Walker hinder his ability to represent him effectively and that it would serve the interests of justice to pause the proceedings until a decision is made on his Motion to Withdraw as counsel. Robinson requested a bifurcated hearing to establish whether Walker would waive his privilege, which would allow for a subsequent formal hearing where Robinson could present evidence for his withdrawal. He noted that if Walker did not waive his privilege, the court could address the withdrawal issue based solely on the initial hearing, as Robinson could not disclose additional evidence due to the privilege.

The trial court's docket indicates that Walker's motion for sanctions was heard on February 7, 2022, and Robinson’s motions on February 17, 2022. Robinson filed a motion for withdrawal on March 25, 2022, stating he had sought to withdraw since October 2021 and had presented his reasons in three hearings, including the most recent on February 17, 2022. Previous hearings had been set for October and November 2021. Robinson expressed that the lack of a ruling left both parties uncertain about the case's status and impeded his ability to defend against Walker's allegations due to the retention of his counsel status.

Following the trial court's inaction, Robinson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on June 6, 2022, citing unreasonable delay in ruling on his withdrawal motion. The initial petition was denied on procedural grounds under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. Robinson corrected the defects and refiled the petition, arguing that he needed to withdraw to defend himself properly. On June 14, 2022, the court stayed the trial pending the resolution of the mandamus proceeding.

The analysis of the situation suggests that mandamus relief requires proof of a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and a lack of adequate appellate remedy. Since the trial court had sufficient time to make a ruling and relators had no adequate remedy through appeal, they demonstrated entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel a ruling.

Considering and ruling on a properly filed motion before a trial court is a ministerial act, and mandamus can compel a trial judge to act. To obtain mandamus relief for a judge's inaction, the relator must show that the motion was properly filed, pending for a reasonable time, that a ruling was requested, and that the judge refused to rule. A trial judge is required to rule "within a reasonable time," and the determination of what constitutes a reasonable time depends on case-specific circumstances, including the judge's knowledge of the motion, any overt refusal to act, the court's docket, and other pending matters. 

Trial judges have discretion in managing their dockets, but this discretion is not unlimited, as they must also work to expeditiously dispose of cases. In the present case, the motion to withdraw as counsel had been pending for ten months without a ruling, despite being fully heard six months prior. While recognizing no strict timelines, the court noted that ten months without a ruling was unreasonable, justifying mandamus relief. 

The court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to direct the trial court to exercise discretion but cannot dictate the outcome of the ruling on the motion. Consequently, the court conditionally issued a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on the pending motion, with the expectation of prompt compliance. The stay in the underlying case remains until the trial judge acts on the motion to withdraw.