In re Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P.

320 S.W.3d 819 (2010)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P.

Texas Supreme Court
320 S.W.3d 819 (2010)

Facts

Yvonne and Alberto Leal (plaintiffs) sued Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. (Columbia) (defendant) for medical malpractice. The Leals were represented by attorney J.A. Magallanes. Columbia was represented by attorney William Gault. Margarita Rodriguez was a legal assistant who helped Gault on the matter. During this work, Rodriguez had access to confidential information and communications about Columbia and its defense strategy. Rodriguez then left Gault’s firm, agreeing not to disclose any confidential information she had received. Eleven months later, Magallanes hired Rodriguez as his legal assistant. The firm had no formal screening procedures for employees with conflicts of interest. Magallanes orally instructed Rodriguez not to work on the Leal-Columbia matter and assigned the case to the firm’s other legal assistant. Due to health issues, Magallanes reduced his work on the case and brought in another law firm to handle most of it. Despite the instructions to avoid the Leal-Columbia case, Rodriguez placed copies of case documents in the firm’s files and scheduled a court matter for it. When Magallanes learned Rodriguez had scheduled the matter, he orally threatened to terminate both Rodriguez and the other legal assistant if Rodriguez had further contact with the case. Nevertheless, Rodriguez still had contact, such as filing correspondence and managing Magallanes’s calendar. Magallanes also once asked Rodriguez to photocopy a birth certificate and Social Security card for the case. Gault learned Rodriguez was working for Magallanes, and Columbia moved to disqualify Magallanes from representing the Leals. The trial court ordered Rodriguez not to work on the case but did not disqualify Magallanes. Columbia appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Medina, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership