AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

In re Esquibel (AI Generated Opinion Summaries)

Collection AI Generated Opinion Summaries
Date 01/08/1992
Official Citation 1992-NMSC-007
Docket Numbers 20,113
Relations See full-text opinion - In re Esquibel - 1992-NMSC-007 - 01/08/1992 - Reported Opinions

Decision Content

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 convicted of the felony offense of demanding or receiving a bribe as a public officer or public employee. This conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, leading to disciplinary proceedings and a recommendation for disbarment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

  • Supreme Court of New Mexico, October 9, 1991: The attorney was summarily suspended from the practice of law following his felony conviction (para 2).
  • Disciplinary Board, November 19, 1991: The attorney entered into an agreement not to contest the charges and consented to discipline, including disbarment (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

  • Respondent: Admitted to violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and agreed that disbarment was an appropriate sanction under the circumstances (para 3).
  • [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the attorney’s felony conviction and related conduct warranted disbarment under the Rules Governing Discipline.

Disposition

  • The attorney was disbarred from the practice of law (para 4).
  • The attorney was permitted to file a motion for reinstatement three years from the date of his original suspension, contingent on fulfilling all probation requirements (para 5).

Reasons

Per curiam (Ransom CJ, Baca, Montgomery, Franchini, and Frost JJ. concurring):

The court found that the attorney’s felony conviction for demanding or receiving a bribe constituted a serious violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 16-804(B), (D), and (H). The attorney’s agreement to the charges and consent to disbarment demonstrated acknowledgment of the gravity of his misconduct. The court adopted the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation for disbarment as the appropriate sanction. Additionally, the court allowed for the possibility of reinstatement after three years, provided the attorney successfully completed all probationary requirements (paras 1-5).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.