AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 licensed in New Mexico faced disciplinary proceedings for repeated violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney had a history of misconduct, including failure to maintain contact with clients and courts, missing court appearances, and non-compliance with probationary conditions. Despite being given multiple opportunities to correct his behavior, the attorney continued to exhibit non-compliance, including missing court appearances, failing to meet with his supervisor, and accepting cases without permission (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• In re Tapia, 108 N.M. 650, 777 P.2d 378 (1989): The attorney was suspended for two years, with all but one year deferred, for professional misconduct.
• In re Tapia, 110 N.M. 693, 799 P.2d 129 (1990): The attorney's suspension was extended for an additional year due to further violations.
• In re Tapia, 114 N.M. 37, 834 P.2d 414 (1992): The attorney was reinstated on a two-year probationary basis with stringent conditions.
• Disciplinary Board, November 18, 1994: The attorney's probation was extended for an additional year following a stipulated agreement acknowledging violations of probationary conditions (paras 2-3).

Parties' Submissions

• Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney failed to comply with probationary conditions, including missing court appearances, failing to meet with his supervisor, and accepting cases without permission. They sought suspension or disbarment (paras 1, 4).
• Respondent (Attorney): Contended that his probation ended on November 18, 1995, and that any violations after that date should not be considered. He also cited personal tragedies as contributing factors to his non-compliance (paras 4-7).

Legal Issues

• Was the attorney in violation of the terms of his probation?
• Should the attorney be suspended or disbarred for his continued non-compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Disposition

• The attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective May 22, 1996 (para 8).
• The attorney was barred from applying for reinstatement for at least two years and required to meet specific conditions for reinstatement, including therapy, retaking the bar exam, and making restitution to clients (para 9).
• A third party was appointed to inventory the attorney's open files to protect client interests (para 10).

Reasons

Per Curiam (Frost CJ, Ransom, Franchini, and Minzner JJ.):

The Court found that the attorney failed to comply with the terms of his probation, including missing court appearances, failing to meet with his supervisor, and accepting cases without permission. The Court rejected the attorney's argument that his probation had ended automatically, noting that reinstatement required a formal petition and compliance with probationary conditions (paras 5-6).

The Court emphasized that probation is intended to help attorneys correct deficiencies in their professional conduct. The attorney's repeated non-compliance and negative attitude toward the disciplinary process demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to reform. While the Court acknowledged the personal tragedies cited by the attorney, it found these explanations unpersuasive given his history of misconduct and lack of cooperation (paras 6-7).

The Court concluded that indefinite suspension was necessary to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. Reinstatement would require the attorney to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, his fitness to practice law, including addressing his emotional and professional deficiencies (paras 8-9).