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 former government attorney represented a client in a driver's license revocation proceeding before the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Taxation and Revenue. The attorney had left the Department three months prior, where they had worked on cases involving the Implied Consent Act. The hearing officer disallowed the attorney's representation, citing a violation of a "revolving door" statute, which prohibits former public employees from representing clients for pay before their former agency for one year after leaving government service (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: Held that the "revolving door" statute, as applied to attorneys, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by infringing on the judiciary's authority to regulate the practice of law. The court overturned the revocation of the client's driver's license (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Taxation and Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle Division): Argued that the "revolving door" statute is constitutional and does not infringe on the judiciary's authority to regulate attorneys. The statute is intended to prevent undue influence and maintain public trust in government agencies (paras 7-8).
- Appellee (Attorney): Contended that the statute, as applied to attorneys, violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by intruding on the judiciary's exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. The attorney also argued that the statute conflicts with the New Mexico Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct (paras 4, 10, and 15).
Legal Issues
- Does the "revolving door" statute, as applied to attorneys, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine by infringing on the judiciary's authority to regulate the practice of law?
- Does the "revolving door" statute conflict with the New Mexico Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the "revolving door" statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or conflict with the Rules of Professional Conduct (paras 19-20).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Donnelly and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
- The Court emphasized the strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments and applied the rational-basis test to the statute (paras 5-6).
- The "revolving door" statute aims to prevent undue influence and maintain public trust in government agencies. It does not regulate the practice of law but instead imposes ethical standards on former government employees, including attorneys (paras 7-8, 14).
- The statute does not conflict with Rule 16-111 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as the two provisions address different concerns. Rule 16-111 focuses on preventing the misuse of information gained during government service, while the statute addresses the appearance of impropriety and undue influence (paras 15-17).
- The Court found that the statute does not unduly restrict attorneys' ability to practice law, as it only imposes a one-year limitation on paid representation before their former agency (paras 12-13).
- The Court concluded that the statute is a valid exercise of legislative authority and does not infringe on the judiciary's exclusive power to regulate attorneys (paras 14, 18).