WPCG5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P&P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   2 5;,<Q-=-0[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXd6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P&P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2=5E53|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 970654ă & In Re American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, Relators   On Petition for Writ of Mandamus   # é consolidated with ă & &No. 970655ă & In Re American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Laboratories Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, Relators   On Petition for Writ of Mandamus    Argued on November 5, 1997 ă Justice Spector, dissenting. This case concerns the disqualification of two law firms representing several hundred plaintiffs in five lawsuits in four counties. The defendants filed motions to disqualify in two courts based on assertions that plaintiffs law firms had hired two members of defendants defense team"Diana Palacios, allegedly a paralegal, and Dr. Salvador Gonzalez, allegedly a consulting expert. After a fiveday, hotly contested evidentiary hearing, the Bexar County trial court denied the motion to disqualify. The Hidalgo County trial court, after reviewing the record, reached the same result. On the same record, this Court reaches the opposite result. I dissent because I believe that we cannot say that the facts and the law in this case permit both trial courts to reasonably reach but one conclusion concerning Palacioss and Gonzalezs status. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). While it may be reasonable to conclude that Palacios worked as a paralegal for Wyeth, it was not unreasonable on this record for the trial courts to conclude that her role did not provide her with access to confidential information. Likewise, the trial courts could have reasonably concluded that Gonzalez was a treating physician and thus could not have been a consulting expert. See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990). Finally, the trial courts could have reasonably concluded that the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant disqualification. See In re Meador, __ S.W.2d __, __ (1998). Under these circumstances, I disagree with the Courts rigid application of the presumption we recognized in Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall, 887 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex. 1994). Disqualifying a law firm is a harsh remedy. Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 797 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex. 1990); NCNB Tex. Natl Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex. 1989). A disqualification motion implicates a broad range of interests, such as clients right to the counsel of their choice, the financial burden of replacing counsel, the mobility of lawyers and nonlawyers, preservation of attorneyclient confidences, and maintaining the ethical standards of the profession. See, e.g., In re Complex Asbestos Litig., 283 Cal. Rptr. 732, 739 (Ct. App. 1991). Courts should carefully consider the prejudice to the party that inevitably results from disqualification. Kapco Mfg. Co., Inc. v. C&O Enters., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 1231, 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1985). These concerns are magnified when disqualification is sought in mass litigation. Complex Asbestos Litig., 283 Cal. Rptr. at 739. This Court recently recognized that disqualifications should not be automatic and that trial courts must consider all the facts and circumstances to determine whether the interests of justice require disqualification. Meador, __ S.W.2d at __. In Meador, we observed that trial courts should consider factors such as the promptness with which the attorney notifies the opposing side of a potential conflict, the significance of any privileged information that may have been shared, and the extent to which the nonmovants would suffer prejudice from the disqualification of their attorneys. Id. Rather than take that measured approach, the Court in this case mechanically applies the Phoenix Founders presumption to disqualify the plaintiffs law firms three years into a complex case. The paramount concern in disqualifications must be the preservation of the publics trust in the court system and the bar. Complex Asbestos Litig., 232 Cal. App. 3d at 586. Courts should beware of parties using motions for disqualification to attain a tactical advantage. See Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 653, 663 (D. Colo. 1992); Kapco, 637 F. Supp. at 1241; see also Phoenix Founders, 887 S.W.2d at 836. [J]udges must exercise caution not to paint with a broad brush under the misguided belief that coming down on the side of disqualification raises the standard of legal ethics and the publics respect. The opp Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 1564, 157677 (Fed. Cir. 1984). * * * I believe the Court errs by granting mandamus relief on this record. Accordingly, I dissent. ` ` ` hhhppp________________________ ` ` ` hhhpppRose Spector ` ` ` hhhpppJustice  OPINION DELIVERED: May 8, 1998