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

A Texas appellate 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 underlying cause of action has not been confirmed from available docket information.

Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen is a Texas litigation and business law firm. Hyman appears to be an attorney or principal connected to the firm. When a plaintiff names both a lawyer and the firm together, the typical theory is that the firm is vicariously liable for the individual's conduct.

That framing shapes how damages and indemnity arguments get structured at trial and on appeal.

The April 20 opinion is the most recent docket event. Whether the court affirmed, reversed, or remanded a lower court ruling is not confirmed from available information.

The opinion itself will control what happens next — if the appellate court reversed a dismissal, the case returns to the trial court for further proceedings; if it affirmed a defense judgment, Harriman's path forward narrows to a petition for review before the Texas Supreme Court.

The judge assigned to write the opinion has not been identified in available records, and the specific docket number for the appellate proceeding is not confirmed. Those details matter for tracking subsequent filings. Any party seeking Texas Supreme Court review would need to file a petition for review within 45 days of the appellate court's judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53.7.