/opinion/10845414/susan-e-harriman-v-leslie-hyman-and-pulman-cappuccio-pullen-llp/

A Texas state court issued a written opinion on April 20, 2026 in Susan E. Harriman v. Leslie Hyman and Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP.

The case pits Harriman against both an individual defendant and the San Antonio-based law firm, suggesting a dispute that may involve legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, or related professional liability claims — though the court's full findings will determine which theories survived.

Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen is a Texas litigation and business law firm. Hyman appears to be an attorney or principal connected to that firm. When a client sues both a named attorney and the firm together, the typical theory is that the firm is liable for the attorney's conduct under respondeat superior, and the attorney faces direct personal exposure on top of that.

The April 20 opinion is the most significant docket event on record. Whether it resolves the case outright or rules on a discrete motion — summary judgment, dismissal, or something narrower — is not yet clear from the available record. The opinion's existence signals the court has taken a substantive position, not merely managed scheduling.

What matters now is what the opinion ordered. If it granted summary judgment for either side, the losing party faces a decision on appeal. If it denied dismissal, the defendants must prepare for trial.

Either way, the April 20 ruling is the pivot point the rest of the litigation will turn on.

The docket number and assigned judge are not yet confirmed in the available record. Harriman is the plaintiff. Hyman and the firm are the defendants.

The court's identity — likely a Texas district court given the parties and firm location — has not been pinned down from the case citation alone.