Fonseca v. Barth
Fonseca v. Barth
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
This is an appeal from a dismissal for want of prosecution. During oral argument, counsel for appellees informed the Court they had discovered two Texas Supreme Court cases,
Rule 3.03 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct provides a lawyer shall not knowingly
fail to disclose to the tribunal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.
Tex. DisciplinaRY R. PROF. Conduct 3.03(a)(4) (1997), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. tit. 2, subtit. G app. (Vernon Supp. 1998) (State Bar Rules art. X, § 9). We take this opportunity to laud counsel for appellees for their candor with this Court. In this era of “Rambo” litigation, the Court finds counsels’ conduct in pointing out adverse, but controlling authority, commendable.
The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and REMANDED.
. Thordson v. City of Houston, 815 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1991), and Gulf Coast Inv. Corp. v. Nasa 1 Business Center, 754 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. 1988).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.