Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña Jr., 13-26-00039-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus because the relator attempted to seek relief independently while remaining represented by counsel of record. The court reaffirmed that Texas law strictly prohibits “hybrid representation” in civil proceedings, rendering a pro se filing by a represented party procedurally improper.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law matters—particularly enforcement actions involving writs of attachment or contempt—clients are often driven by urgency and may attempt to file their own pleadings when they perceive a delay in counsel’s strategy. This case serves as a critical reminder to family law practitioners that allowing a client to “take the lead” on supplemental filings or original proceedings while counsel remains of record is a fatal procedural error. A pro se petition filed by a represented spouse or parent will not only be dismissed but, as seen here, can result in the immediate lifting of emergency stays, potentially subjecting the client to arrest or other trial court sanctions.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Juan Pardo filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court’s issuance of ex parte writs of attachment for his arrest. Alongside his petition, Pardo filed a motion for emergency relief to stay the underlying orders. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals initially granted the stay and requested a response from the Real Parties in Interest. In response, the Real Party in Interest moved to dismiss the petition, pointing out that Pardo was currently represented by two qualified attorneys of record and was thus ineligible to proceed pro se. Despite Pardo’s reply arguing the merits of the attachment orders, the appellate court focused on the threshold procedural defect of his filing status.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a relator is entitled to file an original proceeding pro se while concurrently represented by counsel of record. The court also addressed the resulting status of an emergency stay when the underlying petition is dismissed for a procedural defect such as prohibited hybrid representation.
Rules Applied
The court relied upon the long-standing Texas rule that “a party is not entitled to representation partly by counsel and partly pro se.” This prohibition against hybrid representation in civil cases is supported by a robust body of appellate precedent, including In re S.V., 599 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied) and In re H.O., 555 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, a relator must satisfy the burden of showing both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal; however, the court did not reach these elements because the relator lacked the standing to file the petition independently while represented.
Application
The court’s analysis was straightforward: because Pardo had not terminated his attorneys of record, he remained “represented” in the eyes of the law. The court declined to entertain the merits of the petition—even though it involved the significant issue of an arrest warrant—because the filing itself violated the rule against hybrid representation. By attempting to act as his own advocate while maintaining a legal team, Pardo created a procedural nullity. The court noted that while the Real Party in Interest requested that the court “require” Pardo to terminate his counsel, the court’s authority was limited to dismissing the unauthorized petition.
Holding
The Court held that the petition for writ of mandamus must be dismissed without prejudice. In civil litigation, a party must choose between the assistance of counsel and the right to represent themselves; they cannot oscillate between the two or employ both simultaneously for the same filing.
Furthermore, the Court held that the dismissal of the petition necessitated the lifting of the previously imposed stay. By failing to follow the procedural requirements for filing, the relator lost the temporary protection the appellate court had initially provided against the trial court’s writs of attachment.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case emphasizes the need for strict “client control” during the appellate process. If a client insists on filing an original proceeding that counsel deems unmeritorious or premature, the client cannot simply file it themselves as a “supplement” to the firm’s work. To avoid the outcome in Pardo, counsel must either file the petition on the client’s behalf or formally withdraw from the case to allow the client to proceed pro se. Additionally, when representing a Real Party in Interest, practitioners should immediately check the signature block of any pro se mandamus petition against the trial court’s designation of counsel to seek a quick dismissal under the hybrid representation rule.
Checklists
Managing Frustrated Clients in Enforcement Actions
- Advise the client in writing that any pro se filing while you are counsel of record will be dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
- Explain that a procedurally defective filing can result in the loss of an emergency stay, leading to immediate enforcement of arrest warrants or property transfers.
- If the client persists, ensure a formal Motion to Withdraw is granted before the client files any pro se original proceedings.
Attacking an Opposing Party’s Pro Se Mandamus
- Verify the current attorneys of record in the trial court and the appellate court.
- File a Motion to Dismiss based on prohibited hybrid representation.
- Concurrently move to lift any emergency stays granted by the appellate court on the grounds that the underlying petition is a procedural nullity.
Citation
In re Juan Pardo, No. 13-26-00039-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 30, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~4e0aa3b0-39ba-44bc-8a2e-21b96607fb01~~
Share this content: