This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An attorney, representing a client in an employment dispute, participated in the secret recording of a meeting involving his client, the client's father, and an unrepresented cousin who was an employee and shareholder of the family business. The attorney misrepresented his role during the meeting to gather evidence for a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Hearing Committee: Dismissed charges under Rules 16-402 and 16-403, recommended public censure for violation of Rule 16-804(C) (para 6).
- Disciplinary Board Panel: Affirmed dismissal of Rule 16-402 charge, found violations of Rules 16-403 and 16-804(C), recommended public censure (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Respondent: Argued that Rule 16-403 is unclear and does not explicitly prohibit speaking with an unrepresented party to gain admissions, emphasizing a duty of zealous advocacy (paras 11-12).
- Petitioner: Alleged violations of professional conduct rules due to deceitful conduct and misrepresentation during the secret recording (paras 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate Rule 16-403 by misrepresenting his role to an unrepresented person?
- Did the attorney violate Rule 16-804(C) by participating in the secret recording of a witness?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico adopted the panel's recommendation and publicly censured the attorney (para 19).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court found that the attorney violated Rule 16-403 by implying he was a neutral party while seeking evidence against an unrepresented person, failing to clarify his role as an advocate (paras 9-10). The attorney also violated Rule 16-804(C) by participating in a secret recording intended to gather evidence for a lawsuit, which was deemed deceptive (paras 13-14). The Court rejected the attorney's argument that the rule was unclear, emphasizing the need for transparency when dealing with unrepresented individuals (paras 11-12). The attorney was ordered to pay costs and complete additional ethics education (para 18).