IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00167-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
JAMES VAUGHN IV AND AMBER VAUGHN
From the 369th District Court
Leon County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV20-0222
ABATEMENT ORDER
On September 10, 2021, Appellee Amber Vaughn (Amber) filed a notice
designating Amy Ward (Ward) as her attorney in this appeal. Subsequently, on
September 13, 2021, Appellant James Vaughn IV (James) filed a Motion to Disqualify
Opposing Counsel. James asserts in his motion that in August 2020, he was a prospective
client of Ward. James states that he consulted with Ward about the underlying case but
that he declined to enter into a client-lawyer relationship with her. James argues that this
nevertheless creates a conflict of interest that prevents Ward from representing Amber in
this appeal.
“[Texas Committee on Professional Ethics] opinions are concerned with matters of
attorney discipline and are advisory rather than binding.” Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp., 327 S.W.3d 859, 866 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).
Nevertheless, opinion 691 of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of
Texas provides:
A lawyer who consults with a person about the possibility of
forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter owes that
person a duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.05 of the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct and may not use or reveal information
communicated by the prospective client except in accordance with that
Rule.
A lawyer’s consultation with a prospective client may result in a
disqualifying adverse limitation under Rule 1.06(b)(2). Whether a lawyer’s
representation of a client reasonably appears to be adversely limited by the
lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to a former prospective client is ordinarily
a factual inquiry. As a general rule, a lawyer should not represent a client
with interests materially adverse to those of a former prospective client in
the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information
from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that
person in the matter.
Tex. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 691 (2021).
We therefore abate this cause to the trial court. The trial court is ORDERED to
conduct an evidentiary hearing on James’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel
within 21 days of the date of this Order. The trial court is thereafter ORDERED to make
findings of fact and conclusions of law within 28 days of the date of this Order.
The court reporter is ORDERED to file a supplemental reporter’s record of the
hearing within 35 days of the date of this Order. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 2
a supplemental clerk’s record, containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law, within 35 days of the date of this Order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Order issued and filed September 29, 2021
RWR
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 3