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 was suspended from practicing law in New Mexico for failing to comply with conditions of probation imposed in a prior disciplinary order. Despite the suspension, the attorney failed to notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel of the suspension as required by court rules. Additionally, the attorney engaged in legal activities while suspended, including participating in negotiations on behalf of a client and failing to withdraw from a pending domestic relations case (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- In re Ruybalid, August 18, 1994: The attorney was placed on probation for failing to comply with rules governing attorney trust accounts (para 1).
- In re Ruybalid, May 24, 1995: The attorney was found in contempt for failing to comply with probation conditions and was indefinitely suspended from practicing law (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney failed to comply with the notice requirements of Rule 17-212 by not informing clients, courts, and opposing counsel of the suspension and by failing to file an affidavit of compliance. Additionally, the attorney engaged in unauthorized legal activities while suspended (paras 2-3).
- Respondent (Attorney): Claimed that depression and the closure of his business prevented compliance with notice obligations. Denied engaging in unauthorized legal activities, asserting that his actions were limited to confirming prior negotiations. Also argued that written notice to a client was unnecessary because the client was his girlfriend (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney fail to comply with the notice requirements of Rule 17-212 following his suspension?
- Did the attorney engage in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended?
- Should additional sanctions be imposed for the attorney's noncompliance?
Disposition
- The attorney was found in contempt for failing to comply with Rule 17-212 and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (para 5).
- The automatic reinstatement provision in the May 24, 1995, suspension order was revoked (para 7).
- The attorney was ordered to comply with Rule 17-212 within 30 days, with failure to do so resulting in additional sanctions (para 10).
- The attorney was indefinitely suspended for a minimum of six months, effective August 30, 1995, with reinstatement contingent on compliance with prior disciplinary conditions and a fitness determination by the disciplinary board (paras 7, 11-12).
Reasons
Per curiam (Baca CJ, Ransom, Franchini, Frost, and Minzner JJ.):
The Court emphasized that suspended attorneys remain subject to its jurisdiction and must comply with all rules, including notice requirements under Rule 17-212. The attorney's failure to notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel, as well as his unauthorized legal activities, demonstrated a disregard for these obligations. The Court rejected the attorney's excuses, stating that depression and personal relationships do not exempt attorneys from compliance. The purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, and the attorney's actions undermined the Court's authority and the integrity of the legal profession. Additional sanctions were imposed to ensure compliance and accountability (paras 5-8).