This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The respondent, a disbarred attorney, was found to have continued practicing law despite a prior disbarment order. He engaged in legal representation for a judgment debtor, including providing financial information and negotiating a settlement, actions prohibited under his disbarment. The respondent also failed to comply with notice requirements and did not appear at a show cause hearing regarding his conduct (paras 1, 6-7, 10, 14).
Procedural History
- In re Schmidt, 118 N.M. 213, 880 P.2d 310 (1994): The respondent was suspended for three years for dishonest conduct, with the second and third years deferred to probation, contingent on compliance with a consent agreement.
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, October 31, 1994: The deferral was revoked, and the respondent was suspended for the full three-year period after failing to comply with the consent agreement and notice requirements.
- In re Schmidt, 121 N.M. 640, 916 P.2d 840 (1996): The respondent was disbarred for misappropriating $10,000 from his trust account and failing to comply with prior disciplinary orders.
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the respondent violated the disbarment order by continuing to practice law, failing to comply with notice requirements, and disregarding court orders (paras 6-7, 10).
- Respondent: Claimed he was not acting as an attorney but merely assisting as a friend and that the United States Attorney initiated contact. He argued his actions were not intended as legal representation (para 12).
Legal Issues
- Did the respondent violate the terms of his disbarment by continuing to practice law?
- Was the respondent in contempt of court for failing to comply with the disbarment order and notice requirements?
Disposition
- The respondent was found in criminal contempt of court and sentenced to five months of incarceration, suspended on conditions of compliance with the disbarment order, notice requirements, and cessation of legal representation (paras 1, 15-16).
Reasons
Per Joseph F. Baca, Chief Justice (Ransom and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the respondent blatantly disregarded the disbarment order by continuing to act in a legal capacity, including providing financial information and negotiating on behalf of a judgment debtor. The respondent's claim of acting as a "friend" was rejected, as only licensed attorneys or pro se litigants may represent parties in legal matters. The Court emphasized that disbarred attorneys must comply with notice requirements and refrain from any legal representation. The respondent's failure to appear at the show cause hearing and his admitted avoidance of court communications further demonstrated contempt for the Court's authority. The sentence of incarceration was suspended on strict conditions to ensure compliance (paras 6-10, 12-14).