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, disbarred in 1984 for professional misconduct, sought reinstatement to the practice of law. The attorney demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts, including abstaining from alcohol, participating in support groups, undergoing psychological counseling, and completing continuing legal education (CLE) programs. The attorney also secured employment with the New Mexico Human Services Department and received offers of supervised legal work upon reinstatement (paras 1, 5-7).
Procedural History
- In re Ayala, 102 N.M. 214, 693 P.2d 580 (1984): The attorney was disbarred for professional misconduct.
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, July 6, 1988: The attorney's first petition for reinstatement was denied due to a lack of demonstrated rehabilitation and fitness to practice law (paras 1-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that he had rehabilitated himself through abstinence from alcohol, participation in support groups, psychological counseling, and CLE programs. He also presented evidence of his professional competence and willingness to work under supervision (paras 5-8).
- Disciplinary Board: Recommended reinstatement on a probationary basis, citing the petitioner’s progress and the safeguards proposed to ensure public protection (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to resume the practice of law.
- Whether reinstatement on a probationary basis would adequately protect the public and the legal profession.
Disposition
- The petition for reinstatement was granted, with the disbarment converted to an indefinite suspension of at least three years, deferred during a three-year probationary period with specific conditions (paras 9-10).
Reasons
Per curiam (Sosa CJ, Ransom, Baca, Montgomery, and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The court emphasized its duty to ensure that attorneys are of good moral character and competent to serve the public. It noted that the petitioner had made significant progress since his 1988 petition, including abstaining from alcohol, engaging in therapy, and completing extensive CLE programs. Testimony from family, colleagues, and mental health professionals supported the petitioner’s claims of rehabilitation. The court found that the petitioner had met the heavy burden of proving his fitness to practice law and that the proposed probationary conditions would safeguard the public and the profession. The court ordered a three-year probationary period with detailed supervision and reporting requirements, deferring the suspension during this time (paras 4-10).