The Texas Supreme Court has disqualified a Houston law firm from a civil case for hiring a paralegal that worked for the opposing counsel on the same dispute, though the legal assistant failed to disclose she'd worked for the competition on her resume.

The case involves Houston's Vethan Law Firm, who represents Bertram Turner in a civil suit against Christina Lopez. Houston's The Cweren Law Firm represents Lopez. Vethan hired Jeaneal Wright as a paralegal shortly after it filed the suit and assigned her to work on Turner's case.

Wright communicated directly with Turner, reviewed his confidential information, drafted an engagement letter and attended meetings with Vethan attorneys about the case. But her tenure at the Vethan firm only lasted six weeks.

Eight months later, Cweren hired Wright after Cweren had appeared in Turner's case as Lopez's lawyer. To screen for potential conflicts, the record shows that Cweren only asked questions based on information Wright provided in her resume. She failed to mention she'd worked at the Vethan firm and Wright did not volunteer any information about her employment with Vethan.

The record also shows that Cweren failed to instruct Wright to refrain from working on any matters on which she might have worked during her previous positions.

Wright worked for Cweren on the Turner matter for several months, albeit largely in a clerical capacity. After Vethan noticed Wright's initials on Cweren documents, Vethan sent Cweren a letter asserting that Wright's participation in the matter created a conflict that required Cweren to immediately withdraw as Lopez's counsel.

Cweren later conferred with Wright, who admitted she'd worked for Vethan but denied she'd worked on the Turner matter while employed there. Although Cweren refused to withdraw from the case unless Vethan could provide proof that Wright had worked on the Turner case while employed at Vethan, they took remedial action by instructing Wright not to discuss the case with other employees, barred her from viewing any files related to the Turner case and shifted her responsibility to other paralegals.

Vethan filed a motion before the trial court to disqualify Cweren because of Wright's work on the Turner case at both firms. However the trial court denied the disqualification motion and Houston's 14th Court of Appeals later rejected Vethan's petition for writ of mandamus.

Vethan then filed for mandamus relief at the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Cweren to remain on the case.

Vethan argued that it triggered an irrebuttable presumption that Wright imparted confidential information relating to Turner's case to the Cweren firm, requiring their disqualification. But Cweren argued it took measures to avoid disqualification by ensuring Wright was screening off from working on the Turner case.

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court noted that a trial court's decision to grant a motion to disqualify a firm based on a nonlawyer's conduct is a two-step process. First, the court must determine whether the nonlawyer obtained confidential information about the matter while working at the opposing firm and second, whether they shared that information with her current firm.

“We conclude both requirements are met,” the Supreme Court ruled in the Dec. 22 decision in In Re Bertram Turner.

The court further ruled that The Cweren Law Firm had not done enough to prevent potential disclosure when it hired Wright, even though it was previously unaware that she'd worked for Vethan.

“In summary, to rebut the rebuttable presumption that a non-lawyer employee imparted confidential information obtained at her previous employment, the hiring firm must demonstrate that it instructed the non-lawyer employee to refrain from working on any matters on which she worked at any previous employment,” the court wrote.

“The failure to provide this general instruction to a new employee creates an unacceptable risk of disclosure, even if they hiring firm is unaware of the new employee's specific conflict,” the court wrote in a decision that grants Vethan's motion to disqualify Cweren from the case. “Here the record demonstrates that Cweren did not provide this instruction until after it discovered Wright's conflict.”

Joe Lanza, a lawyer with the Vethan's San Antonio office who represented Turner on appeal, said there's a lesson for law firms to learn in the Supreme Court's recent decision — they must admonish all incoming paralegals not to work on any case they previous handled at another firm or risk disqualification.

“In this case, she worked on something that she'd worked on for us before the other firm learned about it. And according to the Supreme Court, that's too late,” Lanza said. “The law firm should have taken steps to admonish new employees when they are first hired not to work on matters they have previously worked on.''

Brian Cweren, the principal attorney of Cweren who represents Lopez on appeal, said he'll ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case. He also believes the decision is a reason why paralegals should be licensed just like lawyers to assist in conflicts checks.

“It's a gotcha moment for a lawyer who sat in an interview and the paralegal never disclosed that she worked for that firm. She never disclosed that on her resume and I wish the court would consider licensing all support staff,” Cweren said. “If a lawyer like me who thought he was following all the rules can get hit like this, the court should license the support staff.''