Sutton v. State Bar of Texas, 08-87-00191-CV
| Decision Date | 13 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-87-00191-CV,08-87-00191-CV |
| Citation | 750 S.W.2d 853 |
| Parties | Robert K. SUTTON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mike Barclay, Alpine, for appellant.
Linda Acevedo, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Steven D. Peterson, Gen. Counsel, State Bar of Texas, Austin, for appellee.
Before SCHULTE, FULLER and WOODARD, JJ.
This is an appeal from a default judgment disbarring Appellant from the practice of law. We affirm.
On March 14, 1986, petition was filed.
On April 3, 1986, interrogatories were served upon Appellant to be answered on or before May 5, 1986.
On December 22, 1986, notice of intention to take Appellant's deposition on March 6, 1987 was filed.
February 27, 1987 was the postmark of a letter from the attorney for the Appellant/Respondent informing the Petitioner that the Respondent was not going to be able to attend the deposition because of medical treatment and surgery.
On March 5, 1987, Petitioner received an unfiled motion for protective order seeking to shield the Respondent from deposing because of "medical problems."
On March 6, 1987, Respondent failed to appear for deposition.
On March 20, 1987, Petitioner presented a motion for sanctions against the absent Respondent at pretrial conference. The trial court took the matter under advisement and requested the attorneys to take the deposition of two treating medical doctors in order to provide some evidence "that will either verify the fact that he is seriously ill or is not." A completion period of a week was agreed upon.
On March 30, 1987, the trial court struck Respondent's pleadings and entered a default judgment.
Rule 215, subd. 2b(5), Tex.R.Civ.P., provides that if a party fails to comply with an order to provide discovery, the court may, after notice and hearing, strike the pleadings and grant default judgment. The Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion. He reasons the purpose of the sanction rules is not to punish the disobeying party but to secure compliance. However, deterrence of others by example is a proper consideration in exacting the penalty. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.1986). The trial court had discretion to examine the Appellant's failure to respond and appear, together with the absence of legal and competent vindicating evidence, and assess an appropriate penalty.
Appellant attacks the trial court's entry of default judgment without hearing evidence before deciding its option to disbar, suspend or reprimand as provided for in art. 10, sec. 23(A), State Bar Rules. He likens the proceeding to default judgment with unliquidated damages. Unless the amount of damages can accurately be calculated by the court from the allegations in the petition, evidence must be received in a suit for damages. In this case, the harm to the individual clients can be determined from the acts alleged in the petition. Upon default, these acts would be deemed admitted. Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.1979). An exception to this general rule was set forth in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 601 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This was a child custody case and the paramount concern of courts in determining the best interests of a child would override technical rules of practice and pleading. The disbarment of an attorney is viewed from the perspective of protection of the public. McBrayer v. Cravens, Dargan & Roberts, 265 S.W. 694 (Tex.Comm'n.App.1924). This philosophical concept would certainly not expand the rights of the attorney/Respondent.
In addition to considering the acts alleged in the petition, the trial court could consider the conduct of the Respondent during the investigation and trial of the disciplinary action. Article 10, sec. 23(B), State Bar Rules. This would include any attempts to thwart or impede the proceedings, or any failure to cooperate in said proceedings. 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys At Law, sec. 58 at 117.
Article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado
...v. Texas Dept. of Human Services, 757 S.W.2d 44, 47-48 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1988, writ denied); Sutton v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1988, writ denied). Nevertheless, a wavier of venue by one defendant [Reyes and Padron] does not prevent another defendant [......
-
Gordon v. Jones
...that venue provisions of Civil Practice and Remedies Code are not jurisdictional and may be waived); Sutton v. State Bar of Tex., 750 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1988, writ denied) (holding that party waived venue challenge by filing general denial before challenging venue). Because i......
-
Garcia Distributing, Inc. v. Fedders Air Conditioning, U.S.A., Inc., 04-88-00430-CV
...a proper consideration for the imposition of sanctions by way of striking the pleading of a party. Sutton v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1988, writ denied). A party who does not timely answer interrogatories or respond to a request for the production of docume......
-
Minnick v. State Bar of Texas, 3-89-151-CV
...Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A. v. Milsap, 760 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Tex.App.1988, writ denied); see also Sutton v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.App.1988, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (upholding the application of Tex.R.Civ.P. 215(2)(b)(5) to disbarment proceedings). Thus, even though Minnick's ......