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 practice in New Mexico was placed on probation following disciplinary proceedings. During the probationary period, the attorney failed to cooperate fully with disciplinary counsel, did not take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), and did not file a petition for reinstatement as required by the terms of probation (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- Disciplinary Board, March 15, 1990: The attorney was placed on probation with specific terms and conditions, including cooperation with disciplinary counsel, taking the MPRE, and filing a petition for reinstatement by March 15, 1991 (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney violated the terms of probation by failing to cooperate, failing to take the MPRE, and failing to file a petition for reinstatement. Requested that the probation be revoked and the original suspension be imposed (paras 1-2).
- Attorney (Pro Se): Acknowledged the material allegations of the disciplinary counsel's motion, effectively admitting to the violations (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the terms and conditions of probation imposed by the Disciplinary Board?
- Should the attorney's probation be revoked, and the original suspension be imposed?
Disposition
- The attorney's probation was revoked, and he was suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time, but not less than one year, effective May 31, 1991 (para 7).
- Reinstatement was made conditional upon compliance with the original terms of probation and filing an application for reinstatement after the suspension period (para 8).
- The attorney was ordered to comply with Rule 17-212 within ten days of the suspension's effective date (para 9).
- The attorney's name was struck from the roll of those permitted to practice law in New Mexico (para 11).
Reasons
Per Curiam (Baca, Montgomery, and Franchini JJ.):
The Court emphasized the seriousness of an attorney's failure to comply with probationary terms, particularly when a suspension had been deferred in favor of probation. The Court reiterated that attorneys on probation must diligently fulfill all conditions and do not have the discretion to choose which conditions to observe or when to comply (paras 5-6). The attorney's failure to cooperate, take the MPRE, and file a petition for reinstatement was deemed inexcusable and demonstrated contempt for the Court's orders. Consequently, the Court revoked the probation and imposed the original suspension, with additional conditions for reinstatement (paras 6-8).