Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture v. Joe

I believe the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance by appellant Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture (“239 JV’). Moreover, I would affirm the trial court’s summary judgments on behalf of both appellees Harry J. Joe (“Joe”) and Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C. (“J & G”). I am concerned about the duty created today by the majority that may affect lawyers serving in the public sector. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Procedural Background

239 JV filed suit against both Joe and J & G on April 18, 1997, alleging a breach of their fiduciary duties, specifically…