Michael Gray v. David J. Willis, Individually and David J. Willis & Associates, P.C.--Appeal from 189th District Court of Harris County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00750-CV
Michael GRAY,
Appellant
v.

David J. WILLIS, Individually and

David J. Willis & Associates, P.C.,

Appellees
From the 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001-07266
Honorable Jeff Work, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2003

AFFIRMED

Appellant Michael Gray sued his former attorney, David J. Willis, and Willis's law firm, David J. Willis & Associates, P.C., for legal malpractice. On May 22, 2002, David J. Willis and David J. Willis & Associates, P.C. filed a motion to dismiss Gray's lawsuit based on Willis's filing of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This motion was set for hearing on August 12, 2002. Gray was given written notice of the hearing through his attorney, Woodrow W. Miller. On August 12, 2002, the trial court signed an order dismissing Gray's claims with prejudice. Gray appeals.

According to Gray, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss his claims for the following reasons: (1) Before the hearing on August 12, 2002, Gray's attorney, Miller, was disbarred; (2) Gray had no knowledge that Miller was practicing law without a license until October 31, 2002; (3) The trial court should have known that Miller was practicing law without a license; and (4) The trial court should have notified Gray before the August 12, 2002 hearing that Miller was disbarred so that Gray could have obtained another attorney before the hearing. Therefore, Gray concludes that his case should not have been dismissed.

No support for Gray's assertions, however, appears in the appellate record. The record does not reflect that Gray's attorney was disbarred, nor does it reflect that Gray had no knowledge of his attorney's disbarment. Furthermore, Gray has cited no authority for his assertion that the trial court should have known his attorney was practicing law without a license or that the trial court had a duty to notify Gray of this fact before the August 12th hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).

Because Gray has failed to show any error on the part of the trial court, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Karen Angelini, Justice