In re Kirby Inland Marine, LP

Kirby Inland Marine, LP and its affiliates operate tank barges across the Mississippi River system, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and all three U.S. coasts. From 2019 until April 2025, attorney David James represented Kirby in numerous matters, many of them Jones Act personal injury cases, and as lead attorney on some he worked with Kirby to investigate facts and develop strategy.¹ Three months after leaving his former firm for Sorrels Law, James appeared for Jessi Mendia, a tankerman who sued Kirby under the Jones Act after slipping while carrying a coil of mooring wire down stairs with one handrail.² Kirby says the incident happened during James's representation of Kirby in matters involving the same types of claims, injuries, policies, and defense strategies, and that James sent Kirby notice of the petition in an effort to represent Kirby in this case.³

This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus from a pretrial ruling. A year after Mendia filed suit, James and Sorrels Law appeared for her, and Kirby moved to disqualify them; after the hearing the trial court asked for supplemental briefing, Kirby filed a corrected declaration and a motion for leave, and Mendia moved to strike the declaration.¹ The 129th District Court of Harris County (Judge Gomez) denied disqualification on the ground that Kirby had not shown a "compelling basis," and the court granted the motion to strike and denied Kirby's motion for leave.² The First Court of Appeals denied mandamus in a per curiam decision on May 14, 2026.³ Kirby petitioned on May 29, 2026, Mendia responded July 1, and Kirby replied July 21 (Docket). On October 23, 2026 the Court set the case for oral argument on March 2, 2027 (Docket).

Kirby presents five issues:¹

1. whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying disqualification for lack of a "compelling basis" when its former counsel represents a party materially adverse to Kirby in a substantially related matter in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1.05 and 1.09
2. whether the court applied an erroneous "compelling basis" standard contrary to the irrebuttable presumption of access to confidences in substantially related matters
3. whether the court abused its discretion by not disqualifying Sorrels Law under Rule 1.10, because James's conflict is imputed and no screen applies
4. whether the court abused its discretion by denying Kirby's motion for leave and granting the motion to strike, which kept Kirby from developing its claim
5. whether Kirby lacks an adequate remedy by appeal

Issues 1 through 3 (disqualification)

Relator (Kirby Inland Marine, LP): Rule 1.09 bars a lawyer from representing a party materially adverse to a former client in a substantially related matter, and Kirby says its former counsel's work on six Jones Act cases and other matters, the discovery he seeks, and billing records that show how deeply he was involved establish that relationship.¹ It also invokes Rule 1.05 on protection of confidential information and says James's conflict is imputed to Sorrels Law under Rule 1.10 and was not cured by a screen.²

Real Party in Interest (Jessi Mendia): A lawyer is not disqualified from representing a person against a former client unless the matters are substantially related, and no presumption of shared confidences applies unless they are; the trial judge applied the correct standard and correctly found the evidence inadequate. The mandamus record is incomplete, and none of the eleven matters Kirby points to is substantially related to this one.³

Issue 4 (leave to file supplemental evidence)

Relator: Denying leave and striking the corrected declaration kept Kirby from developing its claim.⁴

Kirby says the decision lets a lawyer turn against a former client by deposing its corporate representative on matters he prepared the witness for and "weaponize privileged information," and that the Court's intervention is needed to clarify the professional rules and to protect client confidences.¹

None