TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL...................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................vi

ISSUES PRESENTED......................................................................................................vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………….1

ISSUE ONE.........................................................................................................................2

Is it an abuse of discretion to find TDRPC Rule 1.03(a or b) or 1.15(d) violations without requiring the Commission to prove up the “reasonable prudent and competent attorney” element by way of expert testimony?

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………….……..4

PRAYER..............................................................................................................................6

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….……...17

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE…………………………………………….…18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

Crouch v. Gleason…………………………………………………………………………3

875 S.W. 2d 738, 739 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1994)

Hall v. Rutherford …………………………………………………………………………4

911 SW2d 422 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1995)

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal……………………………………3

831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)

Monroe v. Blackmon……………………………………………………………………...3

946 S.W. 2d 533, 536 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1997)

Veschi v. Stevens………………………………………………………………………….4

861 S.W. 2d 291, 292 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1993, no writ)

STATUTES

“Reasonable” -- Terminology Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct……….4

Rule 1.03a Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct..……………………..2,4,5

Rule 1.03b Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct ……………………...2,4,5

Rule 1.15d Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct ……………………...2,4,5

Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..5

Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..5

Rule 3.07 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..5

Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NATURE OF THE CASE

The underlying case is a disciplinary petition filed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Relator WorldPeace (Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269^th District Court).

THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent is Judge James R. Fry, in his capacity as presiding judge, appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over the underlying disciplinary petition.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY RELATOR

Relator WorldPeace prays the court to mandamus Judge Fry to remove the TDRPC Rule 1.03(a and b) and Rule 1.15(d) violations from his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment because the Commission did not put on expert testimony regarding a “reasonable prudent and competent attorney” to prove up the “reasonable” elements of the violations.

REGARDING FILING IN THE SUPREME COURT

RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was not first filed in the appeals court because jurisdiction over disciplinary petitions is with the Supreme Court per Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus against a district judge under Section 22.002(a) of the Government Code and Article V. Section 3 of The Texas Constitution.

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 14, 2002 , the Commission for Lawyer Discipline went to trial on its Second Amended Petition. (Record “1”)

WorldPeace designated himself as an expert witness.

In response to WorldPeace’s request for disclosure, the Commission did not designate any expert witness to testify regarding a “reasonable prudent and competent attorney”.

On April 14, 2003 , in pretrial, Judge Fry would not allow WorldPeace to testify as an expert witness.

On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry entered his Judgment for Disbarment finding WorldPeace in violation of Rule 1.03(a and b) and Rule 1.15(d) of the TDRPC. (Record “20”)

On September 26, 2003 , WorldPeace filed Respondent WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV regarding the Court’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment, regarding expert witnesses. (Record “27”)

On September 26, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Second Amended Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment for Disbarment of August 27, 2003 . (Record “90”)

On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry denied Respondent WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV Regarding the Court’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “131”)

On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry denied WorldPeace’s Second Amended Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003 . (Record “132”)

REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDAMUS

1) There is no remedy on appeal because per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Appendix) a Judgment for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed.

2) Judge Fry’s actions in the underlying disciplinary petition as presiding judge are a clear abuse of discretion.

3) The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct affect over 67,000 attorneys in Texas and so WorldPeace’s Application for Writ of Mandamus regarding the underlying disciplinary petition is important to the jurisprudence of the state. Further, the case involves the construction and validity of three statutes with regards to expert witnesses: TDRPC 1.03(a and b) and 1.15(d).

ISSUE ONE:

AUTHORITIES: ABUSE OF DISCRETION

“A trial court “abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W. 2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985, orig. proceeding).”

Crouch v. Gleason, 875 S.W. 2d 738, 739 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1994)

“On the other hand, review of a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential. A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ…

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-40 (1992) (citations omitted).”

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal, 831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)

“Aside from the “clear abuse of discretion” threshold set forth in Walker , supra, the supreme court has also stated that mandamus will lie to correct a “gross” abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Sewell, 487 S.W. 2d 713, 718 ( Tex. 1972). “The relator must establish, under the facts of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W. 2d 916, 917 ( Tex. 1985). Put differently: “[A] clear abuse of discretion, when utilized as the basis for an original mandamus proceeding, refers to the unique situation wherein the lower court, exercising a ‘discretionary’ authority, has but one viable course to follow and one legitimate way to decide the question presented, but instead issues a contrary ruling.” Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Kirk, 702 S.W. 2d 321, 323 (Tex. App. – Eastland 1986, orig. proceeding).”

Monroe v. Blackmon, 946 S.W. 2d 533, 536 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1997)

AUTHORITIES

Rule 1.03 Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Rule 1.15(d) Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.

Terminology – Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

“Reasonable” or “Reasonably” when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

In Texas , a lawyer is held to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent attorney.

Veschi v. Stevens, 861 S.W. 2d 291, 292 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1993, no writ)

Therefore, expert testimony of an attorney is necessary to establish this standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by an attorney. The plaintiff is then required to controvert the expert testimony with other expert testimony.

Anderson v. Snider, 808 S.W. 2d 54, 55 ( Tex. 1991)

Hall v. Rutherford , 911 SW2d 422 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1995)

ARGUMENT

WorldPeace would show the court that the significant attorney malpractice law in this state requires expert attorney testimony to prove up the standard of care of a “reasonably prudent and competent attorney”.

WorldPeace would show the court that the Terminology section of the TDRPC (Appendix) defines the “reasonable” and “reasonably” essential elements of Rule 1.03 (a) & (b) and Rule 1.15(d) as applying to a “reasonably prudent and competent attorney”.

The Commission did not designate an expert witness per Hall to testify as to the duty owed the Complainants by a “reasonably prudent and competent attorney”.

WorldPeace designated himself as an expert witness 58 days prior to trial but Judge Fry abused his discretion and refused to allow WorldPeace to testify as an expert allegedly because WorldPeace did not designate himself in a timely manner. This was true even though the trial court allowed the Commission to add five additional grievances to the underlying disciplinary petition in violation of Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 TRDP (Appendix) eighty days after the Original Disciplinary Petition against WorldPeace was filed; thus leaving only one hundred days to trial per Rule 3.07 TRDP. (Appendix)

WorldPeace would show the court that without considering the fact that WorldPeace was not allowed to testify as an expert witness, the fact remains that the Commission did not prove up the essential element of “reasonable” or “reasonably” of Rule 1.03 (a) & (b) and Rule 1.15(d) TDRPC because it did not designate or call an expert attorney witness at trial for that purpose per Hall.

WorldPeace would therefore show the court that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to find that WorldPeace violated Rule 1.03 (a) & (b) and Rule 1.15(d) in the underlying lawsuit without the testimony of an expert witness and therefore all the TDRPC Rule 1.03 (a) & (b) and Rule 1.15(d) violations regarding the various Complainants should be vacated.

There was no competent evidence regarding the essential element of reasonable or reasonably as in a “reasonably prudent and competent” attorney. The evidence was therefore factually insufficient (non-existent) to support the jury finding on Rule 1.03(a and b) and Rule 1.15(d) TDRPC.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, WorldPeace moves this court to order Judge Fry to modify his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment by vacating the findings of Rule 1.03(a and b) and 1.15(d) TDRPC violations and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountain View, Suite 106
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA No. 21872800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on November 18, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on November 18, 2003 , via EXPRESS MAIL.

John WorldPeace

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS.

____________________________________
John WorldPeace

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

A. August 27, 2003 JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT

B. November 7, 2003 ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S THIRD AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

C. November 7, 2003 ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S MOTION FOR JNOV

D. November 7, 2003 ORDER ON WORLDPEACE SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003

“Reasonable” -- Terminology Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 1.03(a) Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 1.03(b) Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 1.15(d) Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 3.07 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

NO. ________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

______________________________

IN RE:

JOHN WORLDPEACE

______________________________

Re: Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269^th District Court

Harris County , Texas

______________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE, ATTORNEY AT LAW

______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the affiant, John WorldPeace, who being by me first duly sworn, on his oath stated:

My name is John WorldPeace, I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit and fully competent to testify to the matters stated herein, have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein, and the facts contained in this affidavit are true.

The exhibits in the Appendix and Record attached to RELATOR’S Application for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct copies of the originals.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _______ day of _________________, 2003.

____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS

C. September 26, 2003 RESPONDENT WORLDPEACE’S THIRD AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JNOV REGARDING THE COURT’S AUGUST 27, 2003, JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT

D. September 26, 2003 WORLDPEACE’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003

F. November 7, 2003 ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003

How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?