concurring and dissenting.
This is a mandamus proceeding. Mandamus is “an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.” Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex.1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992). We issue mandamus only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no other adequate remedy at law. See Canadian Helicopters, 876 S.W.2d at 305. Today, the Court concludes Ford is not required to wait until appeal from final judgment to obtain relief from the trial court’s award of unconditional appellate attorney’s fees, and holds that mandamus is appropriate. Today’s holding is contrary to both this Court’s rules and precedent. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to this part of the Court’s opinion and its decision to grant relief.
RULE 215 AND BRADEN v. DOWNEY
Rule 215 of our Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or permit discovery the trial court may order the offending party to pay the other side’s reasonable expenses, inelud-*725ing attorney’s fees, and that such an order is subject to review on appeal from the final judgment. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 215(2)(b)(8). Rule 215 also provides that if the trial court finds a party is abusing the discovery process, the court may award reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees. Again, this sanction is subject to review on appeal from the final judgment. See Tex.R. Crv. P. 215(3).
In the past, this Court has followed Rule 215 and has held that trial court attorney’s fee awards for discovery abuse are not ap-pealable until the trial court renders a final judgment. See Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex.1991). In Braden, this Court followed two earlier cases that held the right of appeal is an adequate remedy for review of discovery sanctions and precludes mandamus review. See Street v. Second Court of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638, 639-40 (Tex.1986); Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Tex.1986). We recognized that if all monetary sanctions like those in Street and Stringer were reviewable by mandamus, mandamus would soon cease to be an extraordinary writ. We concluded that the judicial system could not afford immediate review of every discovery sanction. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 928.
But we also recognized that imposing monetary sanctions for discovery abuse must not result in total or even significant preclusion of access to the courts. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929. If by imposing monetary sanctions, the trial court’s order threatens a party’s continuation of the litigation, appeal does not afford an adequate remedy unless the trial court defers payment of the sanctions until final judgment. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; see also Electronic Data Sys. v. Tyson, 862 S.W.2d 728, 734 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993, orig. proceeding); Susman Godfrey, L.L.P. v. Marshall, 832 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding). An order deferring payment affords the sanctioned party the opportunity to super-cede the judgment and perfect an appeal. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; Susman Godfrey, 832 S.W.2d at 108. To obtain such an order the litigant must show that a monetary sanction will preclude his or her access to the court. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; Susman Godfrey, 832 S.W.2d at 108. If a party makes this contention to the trial court, the trial court must either: (1) find that the sanction is- payable only at a date that coincides with or follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or (2) make express written findings after a prompt hearing about why the sanction does not have a pre-clusive effect. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; Electronic Data Sys., 862 S.W.2d at 734.
ADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL
Mandamus will not issue where there is a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1984). As the Court has repeatedly stated, mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Mandamus will issue only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex.1989).
We have consistently held that we lack jurisdiction to issue mandamus to supervise or correct a trial court’s incidental rulings when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. See Canadian Helicopters, 876 S.W.2d at 306; Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684. We never award mandamus where the law provides another plain, adequate, and complete remedy. See Iley v. Hughes, 158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, 652 (1958); Aycock v. Clark, 94 Tex. 375, 60 S.W. 665, 666 (1901). This requirement is met only when parties are in danger of permanently losing substantial rights. See Canadian Helicopters, 876 S.W.2d at 306. The requirement that persons seeking mandamus establish the lack of an adequate appellate remedy is a “fundamental tenet” of mandamus practice. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684. This fundamental tenet is well settled. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
THE TRIAL COURT’S SANCTION ORDER
As the Court acknowledges, the trial court’s sanction order was for discovery *726abuse under Rule 215(3). The order imposed three monetary sanctions against Ford. The first was a $25,000 award of attorney’s fees for prosecuting the motion for sanctions payable ten days from the date of the trial court’s order. The second was a $25,000 award of attorney’s fees if Ford appealed or applied for mandamus from the court’s sanction order. The order did not specify a date for payment of this award. The third assessed a $10,000,000 fine, payable to the plaintiffs to punish Ford for its wrongful and abusive discovery conduct and to deter others from the same conduct.
The court of appeals granted Ford mandamus relief in part, vacating the $10,000,000 fine. However, the court of appeals left undisturbed the other two monetary sanctions as well as the trial court’s order excluding the Kent report from evidence. Here, the Court holds the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning Ford for discovery abuse, but concludes that Ford has an adequate remedy by appeal for the excluded evidence and the attorney’s fees awarded for the sanctions proceeding. I have no quarrel with the Court on these conclusions.
However, the Court further holds that Ford need not wait until appeal from final judgment to obtain relief from the unconditional attorney’s fees award because the penalty directly impacts the party’s exercise of its rights, and therefore is an abuse of discretion, warranting mandamus relief. I agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion in unconditionally awarding $25,-000 to the Archers’ attorneys regardless of Ford’s success in obtaining mandamus relief. But, I disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Ford need not wait until appeal from the final judgment to obtain relief from the trial court’s order.
The Court recognizes that even with an abuse of discretion, for mandamus to issue, the party seeking that relief must establish the lack of an adequate appellate remedy. Indeed, the Court declines to award Ford mandamus relief on the evidentiary issue and the attorney’s fees related to the sanction proceedings for the very reason that Ford has an adequate appellate remedy. But, the Court reaches the opposite conclusion about Ford’s right to mandamus review of the attorney’s fee awarded for prosecuting the mandamus action to obtain relief from this award. Further, the Court reaches this conclusion in the face of our rules that require appellate rather than mandamus review of awards of attorney’s fees for discovery abuse. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 215(2)(b)(8),(3); Street, 715 S.W.2d at 639-40.
In doing so, the Court pays lip service to Braden and other case law that interprets Rule 215 and provides the guiding principles for the limited circumstances when a party may seek mandamus relief from a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees for discovery abuse. The Court then misapplies Braden because it cannot reconcile the principles the case establishes.' The record discloses that Ford has the financial ability to pay the attorney’s fees and still continue with the litigation. Indeed, in support of Ford’s motion to stay the sanctions order, Ford’s representative testified that Ford’s assets were sufficient to pay the $10,000,000 sanction and still continue its defense. Here, the sanction award can be remedied by appeal and the party’s right to seek relief from an appellate court without penalty is not lost forever. Accordingly, Ford has an adequate remedy on appeal. See Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929.
THE ROAD OF NO RETURN-REVISITED
Our requirement that mandamus will not issue when there is an adequate remedy by appeal is well settled. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. The delay in having questions decided through the appellate process does not justify an appellate court’s intervention through the extraordinary writ of mandamus. Interference is justified only when parties stand to lose their substantial rights. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842; Iley, 311 S.W.2d at 652. Here, the record shows that Ford is not in jeopardy of losing substantial rights. Unfortunately, and although well settled, the Court once again honors the lack of adequate appellate remedy requirement more in its breach than in its observance. Even more unfortunate is the fact that despite precedent like Braden and Walker, the *727Court again sets a course down a road of no return.
In Canadian Helicopters, the Court reaffirmed that the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus to supervise or correct a trial court’s incidental rulings where there is an adequate remedy by appeal. See Canadian Helicopters, 876 S.W.2d at 305. In Canadian Helicopters, the Court held, in the context of a special appearance, that Canadian Helicopters had an adequate remedy by appeal and accordingly denied Canadian Helicopters mandamus relief. However, the Court did state that it did not foreclose the possibility that a trial court, in denying a special appearance, may act with such disregard for guiding legal principles that the defendant’s harm becomes irreparable, exceeding mere increased costs and delay. In such a situation, a defendant’s remedy by appeal may be inadequate and mandamus therefore appropriate. See Canadian Helicopters, 876 S.W.2d at 308-09.
It was not too long before this possibility became a reality. In National Indus. Sand Ass’n v. Gibson, the Court held that mandamus was appropriate because the trial court acted with “such disregard for guiding principles of law that the harm to [National Sand] was irreparable.” See National Indus. Sand Ass’n v. Gibson, 897 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.1995).1
The Court followed National Indus. Sand with Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield, where the Court held that requiring a party to advance the litigation costs of the opposition in addition to its own expenses so skews the litigation progress that any subsequent remedy by appeal is inadequate. See Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 595 (Tex.1996). The Court granted mandamus relief despite the fact that Travelers did not dispute, and in fact acknowledged, that it could challenge the trial court’s order in a regular appeal. See Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d at 594.
Close on the heels of Mayfield, came CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1996). CSRwas another special appearance case and the Court determined that appeal was inadequate because the problems inherent in mass tort cases presented extraordinary circumstances. See CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 597.
Now, in this case the Court holds mandamus is appropriate despite the fact that Ford has an adequate remedy on appeal. In my view, this decision represents yet another mile marker down the road of no return, where the Court ignores its own rules and its own precedent and issues mandamus simply because it disagrees with the trial court’s ruling. See Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d at 595 ( Baker, J., dissenting); CSR Ltd., 925 S.W.2d at 604 (Baker, J., dissenting). Because the Court ignores Rule 215(3)’s mandate and continues its departure from its previously clear holdings in Braden&nd Walker, I dissent.
. In 1997, the Legislature changed the law and provided the right to appeal denial of a special appearance by an interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 51.014(7).