IN RE CARRASCO, 1987-NMSC-089, 106 N.M.
294, 742 P.2d 506 (S. Ct. 1987)
In the Matter of Michael M. Carrasco, An
Attorney Admitted
to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New
Mexico.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
1987-NMSC-089, 106 N.M. 294, 742 P.2d 506
September 10, 1987, Filed
Virginia L. Ferrara, Chief Disciplinary
Counsel, Albuquerque, for Board.
Michael M. Carrasco, Carlsbad, pro se.
{1} This matter is before the
Court following disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to SCRA 1986, Rules
Governing Discipline, wherein attorney Michael M. Carrasco was found to have
committed numerous violations of NMSA 1978, Code of Prof. Resp. (Repl.
Pamp.1985) (now SCRA 1986, Rules of Professional Conduct). We adopt the
Disciplinary Board's findings and conclusions and approve its recommendation
that Carrasco be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
{2} Carrasco's misconduct
involved neglect of clients and their cases. Carrasco was hired in June 1986 by
James Mitchell and was paid a retainer of $450 to represent Mitchell in an
employment dispute. Thereafter, Mitchell was unable to reach Carrasco despite
repeated attempts. Carrasco took no action on behalf of Mitchell, and as a
direct result of Carrasco's inaction, Mitchell's right to appeal his suspension
from employment was forfeited. Mitchell subsequently demanded a refund of a fee
paid, but received no response. In September 1986, Mitchell brought suit
against Carrasco
{*295} and was granted
a default judgment due to Carrasco's failure to file a responsive pleading or
otherwise appear to contest the proceedings. Only after two garnishment
proceedings was Mitchell finally able to collect on the judgment.
{3} In another case, Carrasco
agreed to represent Joseph Jones (a resident of Tennessee), on a contingency
basis for claims arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in New
Mexico in October 1984. Jones heard nothing from Carrasco for some time, but
finally managed to reach him in January 1986. At that time Carrasco stated that
he needed written authorization to settle the claim. Jones promptly provided a
letter to this effect. Another six months elapsed before Jones was able to
contact Carrasco again. Phone calls and messages during this period were never
returned or otherwise answered by Carrasco. In June 1986, Carrasco stated that
he needed verification of Jones' employment prior to the accident. Jones then
gave Carrasco his former employer's name and telephone number.
{4} Jones' subsequent calls
to Carrasco were never returned, and in August 1986 he wrote and requested a
status report on his case. Carrasco telephoned Jones and said that he needed
information concerning Jones' lost wages. Jones then sent the necessary
information to Carrasco by certified mail. Hearing nothing from Carrasco, Jones
called again in September. This time Carrasco stated that he could not initiate
proceedings unless he were paid some money. Jones then sent Carrasco a check in
the amount of $150, which Carrasco cashed on September 16, 1986. Thereafter,
Jones heard nothing from Carrasco. There is nothing to indicate that Carrasco
ever filed suit, and the statute of limitations on Jones' case will expire on
October 21, 1987. Carrasco has repeatedly ignored requests to return Jones'
file and the money, even though Jones discharged Carrasco in December 1986.
{5} In a third case, Carrasco
was paid $450 by Rumaldo Alvarado to handle a personal injury suit for
Alvarado's son. On three separate occasions in the autumn of 1986, Carrasco
advised Alvarado to take his son from Artesia to El Paso, Texas, where Carrasco
had allegedly scheduled appointments for the son to see a neurologist. On none
of these occasions had an appointment been made, and the doctor never received
medical records or a retainer fee from Carrasco.
{6} When one contracts with
an attorney for legal services, he or she is entitled to expect that the
attorney will take action of some sort. If more information is needed from the
client in order to proceed, it is the attorney's responsibility to notify the
client; it is not the client's responsibility to initiate all inquiries to the
attorney in order to insure that essential steps are being taken. Furthermore,
attorneys need to be cognizant of the fact that persons involved in litigation
are frequently unfamiliar with the legal system and are anxious about the
situation in which they are involved. It is within the scope of an attorney's
obligations to a client to provide the information, advice, and reassurances
necessary to allay unnecessary concerns that the client may have. Carrasco did
none of these things and therefore violated NMSA 1978, Code of Prof. Resp.
Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(5), 2-110(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1),
7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4) (now SCRA 1986, 16-102, 16-103,
16-104, 16-115, 16-116, 16-302 and 16-804).
{7} Carrasco's misconduct is
compounded by his failure to respond to numerous letters from disciplinary
counsel concerning these matters. When formal charges were initiated in
accordance with the requirements of SCRA 1986, 17-309, Carrasco was personally
served with a copy of a Specification of Charges and received notice of the
hearing. Carrasco failed to file an answer or appear at the proceedings before
the hearing committed, he did not request a hearing before the Disciplinary
Board although advised of his right to do so, and failed to appear before this
Court. Carrasco has totally ignored both the investigation and the proceedings
against him. Such conduct violates NMSA 1978, Code of Prof. Resp. Rules
1-101(C) and 1-102(A)(5)
{*296} (now
SCRA 1986, 16-803(D) and 16-804(D)).
{8} Carrasco has exhibited a
pattern of misconduct and has committed multiple offenses. He has not
acknowledged the wrongful nature of his acts nor exhibited any remorse.
Carrasco harmed his clients, yet apparently has been indifferent to making
restitution or otherwise correcting the chaos created by his neglect; he has
also obstructed these proceedings by his failure to cooperate. Further practice
of law by Carrasco would present a danger to the public, to the reputation of
the profession, and to the administration of justice. We see no alternative
other than indefinite suspension.
{9} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
that Michael M. Carrasco be and hereby is suspended indefinitely from the
practice of law pursuant to SCRA 1986, 17-206(A)(3), effective September 7,
1987. Reinstatement shall occur only after a hearing is conducted pursuant to
SCRA 1986, 17-214(D). As a precondition to any petition for reinstatement,
Carrasco is required to show that he has made restitution to Mitchell, Jones,
and Alvarado of the fees paid to him. Carrasco must also show that he has
returned Jones' file in a timely fashion, and that he has taken and passed the
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. Carrasco should present
evidence that he has overcome the problems preventing him from functioning as
an attorney and that he has arranged to be supervised in his practice for a
period of at least one year by a competent attorney approved by this Court.
{10} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Carrasco file with this Court evidence of his compliance with all of the
requirements of SCRA 1986, 17-212, on or before September 17, 1987, and that he
serve a copy of his affidavit of compliance upon disciplinary counsel.
{11} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the Clerk of the Supreme Court strike the name of Michael M. Carrasco from
the roll of those persons permitted to practice law in New Mexico and that this
opinion be published in the State Bar of New Mexico
Bar Bulletin and in
the
New Mexico Reports.
{12} Costs of this action in
the amount of $121.15 are assessed against Carrasco and are to be paid to the
Disciplinary Board prior to any application for reinstatement.