This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against an attorney for alleged professional misconduct during the defense of a personal injury case. The case involved a pharmacist who allegedly mis-filled a child’s prescription for Ritalin with methadone, leading to a mistrial after a forged prescription was introduced as evidence. The attorney was accused of discovery violations, failing to verify the authenticity of the forged prescription, and misleading the court (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Hearing Committee: Found that the attorney violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a suspension of six months to one year (paras 3-4).
- Hearing Panel: Rejected the committee’s conclusions of law, dismissed the complaint, and found no rule violations (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney violated discovery rules, introduced forged evidence, and misled the court, warranting disciplinary action (paras 1, 6).
- Respondent (Attorney): Claimed reliance on out-of-state counsel and the pharmacist’s assurances, denied intentional misconduct, and argued that her discovery responses were technically correct (paras 4, 6, 15).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to verify the authenticity of evidence and misleading the court?
- Did the attorney’s actions during discovery constitute professional misconduct?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the attorney’s conduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was found to have violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law was imposed, deferred on the condition of a one-year probation with supervision (paras 36-39).
Reasons
Per Curiam (Bosson CJ, Minzner, Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ.):
Discovery Violations: The attorney failed to admit the existence of records showing a discrepancy in methadone inventory and did not supplement discovery responses after learning of a report filed with the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy. These actions obstructed access to evidence and violated Rules 16-304(A) and (D) (paras 9-17, 29-32).
Forged Prescription: The attorney introduced a forged prescription into evidence without verifying its authenticity. While there was no finding of intentional misconduct, this demonstrated a lack of thoroughness and competence, violating Rule 16-101 (paras 18, 21).
Misleading the Court: The attorney pursued a meritless defense based on misrepresentations and failed to exercise independent judgment, violating Rules 16-102(D) and 16-301. The court emphasized that attorneys have an independent duty to the judiciary, even when pressured by out-of-state counsel (paras 22-27).
Professional Misconduct: The attorney’s actions involved dishonesty, were prejudicial to the administration of justice, and adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law, violating Rule 16-804(C), (D), and (H) (paras 33).
Disciplinary Action: Considering mitigating factors, including the attorney’s inexperience and reliance on out-of-state counsel, the court deferred the one-year suspension and imposed probation with supervision. The attorney was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings (paras 35-39).