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, admitted to the New Mexico Bar in 1994, engaged in fraudulent and criminal activities in 1997, including embezzling valuable photographic prints from the University of New Mexico libraries and selling them fraudulently to art galleries. These actions led to criminal charges and subsequent convictions for fraud and embezzlement. The attorney also failed to comply with court-ordered child support obligations and evaded detention after sentencing (paras 2-3, 4).
Procedural History
- Second Judicial District Court, April 6, 2000: The attorney pleaded guilty to three counts of embezzlement (over $2,500), a third-degree felony (para 3).
- First Judicial District Court, April 10, 2000: The attorney pleaded guilty to one count of fraud (over $2,500) and two counts of fraud (over $250), third- and fourth-degree felonies, respectively (para 3).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, 1998: The attorney was suspended from practicing law due to nonpayment of fees (para 2).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, 1999: The attorney was summarily suspended from practice due to criminal charges and failure to comply with child support obligations (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney violated professional conduct rules by committing criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law. They recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction (paras 1, 9).
- Attorney: Did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings, failed to respond to charges, and remained a fugitive throughout the process (paras 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney’s criminal conduct violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 16-804(B) and 16-804(H)?
- Should the attorney be disbarred for his criminal actions and failure to comply with disciplinary procedures?
Disposition
- The attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in New Mexico (para 12).
Reasons
Per curiam (Serna C.J., Baca, Franchini, Minzner, and Maes JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the attorney’s criminal convictions for fraud and embezzlement, which involved dishonesty and misrepresentation, violated Rules 16-804(B) and 16-804(H) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules prohibit criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty and fitness to practice law (paras 1, 9). The attorney’s failure to comply with court orders, including evading detention and failing to provide a current address, constituted bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, an aggravating factor justifying harsher discipline (paras 6-7).
The Court emphasized that professional discipline serves to protect the public, the legal profession, and the administration of justice, rather than to punish the individual. Disbarment was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the attorney’s criminal conduct, which included fraud, embezzlement, and intentional interference with the administration of justice (paras 9-10). The Court also reaffirmed its policy that attorneys on criminal probation cannot practice law and imposed conditions for any future reinstatement, including full compliance with criminal sentences, child support obligations, and payment of disciplinary costs (paras 11-14).