IN RE RAWSON, 1986-NMSC-044, 104 N.M.
387, 722 P.2d 638 (S. Ct. 1986)
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES W. RAWSON an
Attorney Admitted to
Practice before the Courts of the State of New Mexico
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
1986-NMSC-044, 104 N.M. 387, 722 P.2d 638
Virginia A. Ferrara, Chief Disciplinary
Counsel, Albuquerque, for board.
Charles W. Rawson, Melvin D. Rueckhaus,
Albuquerque, for respondent.
{1} This matter came before
this Court on June 25, 1986, after an evidentiary hearing on an Order to Show
Cause why the probation of attorney Charles W. Rawson should not be revoked and
the deferred sanction of suspension imposed. The Court reviewed the transcript
and exhibits from that hearing and heard the arguments of counsel. We adopt the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing officer and revoke
Rawson's probation.
{2} On August 13, 1985, after
disciplinary proceedings, conducted pursuant to NMSA 1978, Rules Governing
Discipline (Repl. Pamp.1983 and Supp.1984), we adopted the findings and
conclusions of the Disciplinary Board and found that Rawson had committed
several acts of misconduct in violation of NMSA 1978, Code of Professional
Responsibility (Repl. Pamp.1983).
See Matter of Rawson, 24 SBB 928
(1985). At that time, we suspended Rawson from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year but deferred imposition of the sanction and placed him on
probation under certain conditions pursuant to NMSA 1978, Rules Governing
Discipline, Rule 11(b)(1) (Repl. Pamp.1983). Of particular importance to this
determination were conditions that Rawson meet with and satisfactorily complete
instruction in trust account procedures and various areas of the law from a
supervising attorney, that during his probation he deposit $17,500 plus
interest with the Clerk of the District Court in Bernalillo County for possible
distribution in a lawsuit pending against him (the facts of which gave rise to
the disciplinary proceeding), and that he take and receive a passing grade on
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.
{3} On March 19, 1986,
disciplinary counsel filed with this Court a Motion for Order to Show Cause why
the probation should not be revoked, alleging that Rawson was in violation of
the conditions of probation noted above. On March 24, 1986, we appointed the
Honorable Stanley F. Frost to serve as hearing officer and report his findings
and recommendations to this Court. A hearing was held on May 1, 1986, and the
hearing officer's report was filed on May 16, 1986.
{4} The evidence clearly
shows that Rawson met with his supervisor on only one occasion and thereafter
ignored her letters requesting additional materials and information from him.
He claims he did not respond because of his belief that his instruction was
completed at the first meeting. Additionally, he felt that he was under no
obligation to provide his supervisor with any information about a problem which
had arisen regarding his alleged failure to account to a client for funds
supposedly paid to him on behalf of the client. Because one of the conditions
of Rawson's probation was that he commit no additional violations of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, it was clearly within the scope of his
supervisor's authority to see that Rawson resolved any new problems as quickly
as possible. Only after his supervisor became tired of seeking Rawson's
cooperation and resigned her appointment, did he request a meeting with her.
{5} In addition, Rawson
admits that he failed to take the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination or deposit money with the district court.
{6} Rawson appears to feel
that the failures by him to comply with these conditions are of little
importance and that this Court should overlook them. He states that he has now
made arrangements to take the
{*389} Examination
(although it will not be given until after his probationary period would have
been concluded) and that he was always had the funds available to deposit with
the district court but felt no compulsion to do so until the final moments of
his period of probation.
{7} Rawson misunderstands the
purpose of probation and his own responsibilities as an attorney on probation.
By imposing probation, the Court allows the lawyer to continue to practice law
while requiring him to meet certain conditions that will insure the protection
of the public and assist him in understanding and meeting his ethical
obligations. These conditions are not mere guidelines, as Rawson seems to
assume, but are orders of this Court which are to be obeyed. A lawyer no
probation should take great care to demonstrate that he appreciates his
situation and diligently fulfills all of the conditions of his probation. He
must not ignore the requests of his supervisor. A lawyer must not fail to
comply with all of the Court's decision. He does not have the option to select
which conditions he will observe nor does he have the option to decide when it
is convenient for him to comply with these conditions.
{8} The hearing officer's
finding that Rawson has exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the conditions of
his probation is supported by the evidence produced at the hearing. This
attitude was further exhibited by Rawson's demeanor when appearing before this
Court. Under the circumstances, it is clear that Rawson would not benefit from
further supervision and instruction or adequately cooperate with any
supervisor.
{9} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
that the probation of Charles W. Rawson be and hereby is revoked and that he is
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year pursuant to
NMSA 1978, Rules Governing Discipline, Rule 11(a)(2) (Repl. Pamp.1985)
commencing on August 4, 1987, and then only upon a showing that he has complied
with all of the previously imposed conditions of probation. Inasmuch as he no
longer has a supervisor, proof of satisfactory instruction in the areas of law
noted in our previous order will be complied with by providing certificates of
attendance at relevant seminars or certificates of instruction from a law
professor or recognized specialist in those aspects of the law.
{10} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Rawson shall file with this Court on or before August 14, 1986, evidence
of his compliance with all of the requirements of NMSA 1978, Rules Governing
Discipline, Rule 17 (Repl. Pamp.1985).
{11} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the Clerk of the Supreme Court strike the name of Charles W. Rawson 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
News and Views and
in the
New Mexico Reports.
{12} Costs of this proceeding
in the amount of $182.66 are assessed against Rawson and shall be paid to the
Disciplinary Board on or before September 4, 1986.