Legal Opinion

In Re George

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 2000No. 99-0616PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Phillips

in which Justice BAKER, Justice ABBOTT,, Justice O’NEILL, and Justice CAYCE (Assigned)1 joined.

In these consolidated mandamus proceedings, we decide whether attorneys can have access to the work product of their client’s previous attorney when that attorney has been disqualified for representing the opposing party in a prior, substantially related matter. We hold that a successor’s access to a disqualified attorney’s work product should be restricted or denied to the extent that such a remedy furthers the purposes underlying the disqualification. Because we establish for the first time a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  2. In Re Epic Holdings, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. NCNB Texas National Bank v. CokerTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Slater v. Rimar, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. In re McCannCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2013
  2. Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2002
  3. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Barbara Soules Young and Amy Ganci v. Robert and Hollie Krantz, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2014

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API