Decision of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals – February 23, 2026

No. 15-25-00235-cv  In re Frank Jackson, Relator (Business Court Division 11B, Harris County)

[Before Brister, Chief Justice, and Justices Field and Farris]

Writs. Barras sued his employer, The Reynolds and Reynolds Company (Reynolds), for breaching his employment contract by terminating him for cause; he also sued  Frank Jackson for tortiously interfering with the employment contract; Jackson was general counsel for Reynold’s parent company, Universal Computer Systems Holding. Jackson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling the trial court to grant his Rule 91a motion and dismiss the tortious interference claim based on attorney immunity. Barras opposed the motion, arguing Jackson’s conduct was business advice and did not  arise in an adversarial context between Barras and Jackson or Barras and Reynolds. Held: (1) the writ petition is granted in part as Jackson is likely to succeed on the merits of his attorney immunity defense. Jackson was sued because of tortious interference with Barras’s employment contract; if his conduct related to that cause of action, it its protected by attorney immunity due to the inherent adversarial context in which it occurred; if it did not relate to Barras’s termination, then it fails to state a claim for the only cause of action alleged against Jackson; a plaintiff cannot have it both ways – he cannot avoid an attorney-immunity defense to one claim by alleging collateral conduct related only to some other claim not pleaded; (2) it is unlikely that Barras will suffer irreparable harm from the grant of the writ if Jackson is shielded from suit as Barras alleges his former employer is a billion-dollar enterprise and it “is hard to see how he will be harmed by pursuing his breach directly against the company and its sole owner.” The court stays the trial proceedings, including discovery, only as to claims against Jackson.  Judge Farris, dissenting, contending Jackson has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success, given the allegations of his role as business advisor to Reynolds and his involvement in its management and operational decisions.