Nico LaHood, a partner in LaHood Norton Law Group in San Antonio. Credit: YouTube.

Former Bexar County Criminal District Attorney Nico LaHood and his law firm should be disqualified from representing a criminal defendant whose case started while LaHood was still San Antonio's top prosecutor, an appellate court has ruled.

"This ruling affirms our belief that the integrity of the justice system is paramount and must be protected. This decision has state-wide implications, as the issue of prosecutor disqualifications has been left unclear for several years. It is our hope this ruling will serve as a guiding light to the other courts," said a statement by the current district attorney, Joe Gonzales.

LaHood lost reelection in 2018 to Gonzales. In January, LaHood went back to practicing criminal-defense law with San Antonio lawyer Jay Norton in their new firm, LaHood Norton Law Group.

Another lawyer there, Jason Goss, entered an appearance for criminal defendant Michael Stovall just seven days after LaHood left office. Goss, LaHood and Norton have all signed a motion in the case, said the opinion by Fourth Court of Appeals Justice Rebeca Martinez, joined by Justices Beth Watkins and Liza Rodriguez.

In June, the district attorney's office moved to disqualify the law firm, because back when he was district attorney, LaHood "was privy to the state's entire case against Stovall." At a disqualification hearing, an assistant district attorney testified that in December 2018, LaHood called her to his office and looked at photos of the complainant's injuries, reviewed 911 calls, and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the Stovall case.

The prosecutor assigned to Stovall's case testified that Goss asked her to dismiss the case, implying that he had information about something that would "kill the case."

The trial court denied disqualification of LaHood Norton Law Group, finding that even if LaHood shared his knowledge of the case with Norton and Goss, the state hadn't met its burden to show that LaHood was privy to work product or confidential information and there wasn't evidence that he actively prosecuted Stovall.

The state sought mandamus relief.

The appeals court wrote that the trial court got it wrong, because Texas law "unequivocally and clearly requires the disqualification of a district attorney, who, after leaving office, is counsel 'adverse to the state in any case in which the former district attorney was of counsel for the state.'"

The dispute in this case is whether LaHood was "counsel for the state" in the Stovall case. There are cases that interpret "counsel for the state" in the context of district attorneys who leave office to become trial judges, and must recuse themselves from cases they handled as prosecutors, the opinion said. For example, if a prosecutor investigated, advised or participated in a case, which rises to the level of active participation, then disqualification is merited.

The court found that when LaHood talked about Stovall's case with the assistant district attorney, reviewed the case and commented on his thoughts and opinions, he was participating in the preparation or investigation of the case. Texas law mandates his disqualification, the opinion said. Because his firm is so small, the entire firm must be disqualified.

"The integrity of our judicial system is put at risk, when a district attorney participates, albeit briefly, as counsel for the state in a case in which he later, after leaving office, acts as counsel adverse to the state," the opinion said. That interest outweighs the defendant's right to counsel of his choice.

LaHood and Goss didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline.

Read the opinion: