Anderson & Associates, PLLC sought extraordinary relief from the appellate court after a trial court issued an order on December 5, 2025, redistributing an attorney's fee award in what appears to be a multi-party legal dispute. The law firm argued the redistribution order was either void or rendered in error, prompting the firm to bypass the normal appellate process and seek immediate mandamus relief from the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals.
In a brief memorandum opinion, Chief Justice Jaime Tijerina, writing for the three-judge panel, applied the established two-prong test for mandamus relief. As Tijerina explained, mandamus petitioners must demonstrate both that 'the trial court abused its discretion' and that 'the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.' The court noted that mandamus is 'an extraordinary and discretionary remedy,' citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent.
The appeals court flatly rejected Anderson & Associates' petition, concluding without extensive analysis that the law firm 'possesses an adequate remedy by appeal.' This determination effectively closed the door on the firm's attempt to secure immediate relief, forcing them to pursue their challenge through the standard appellate process.
The case had initially gained traction at the appellate level, with the court issuing an order on April 8, 2026, requesting responses from the real parties in interest—Hilliard Law f/k/a Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP and Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys. However, the court withdrew that order in Thursday's ruling, indicating the panel's ultimate conclusion that mandamus was inappropriate.
Anderson & Associates had argued in the alternative that the trial court's fee redistribution order was 'beyond its jurisdiction,' which would have made the order 'void ab initio.' Under Texas law, as the court noted, when an order is void, 'the relator need not show that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.' The appellate panel's silence on this jurisdictional argument suggests the court found it unpersuasive.
The ruling represents a significant procedural setback for Anderson & Associates in what appears to be a contentious fee dispute involving multiple prominent Texas law firms. The presence of Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys—one of the state's most visible personal injury firms—as a real party in interest suggests the underlying case may involve substantial attorney's fees from a major personal injury settlement or judgment.
With mandamus relief denied, Anderson & Associates must now decide whether to pursue a traditional appeal of the trial court's fee redistribution order. The firm also faced denial of its motion for emergency temporary relief, indicating the appellate court saw no urgent need to halt the trial court's order pending review.