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, licensed in New Mexico, faced disciplinary proceedings for a pattern of neglect and failure to communicate with clients in multiple criminal cases. The attorney, contracted by the Public Defender Department, failed to file timely docketing statements and respond to court orders, causing significant delays in appeals. The attorney attributed these failures to personal and emotional problems, including alcohol abuse, and agreed to undergo psychological evaluation and treatment (paras 2-5, 7-8).
Procedural History
- In re Allred, 1987: The attorney was disciplined for neglecting a client’s legal matters and failing to respond to disciplinary counsel (para 16).
- In re Allred, 1989: The attorney was disciplined for failing to complete a client’s appeal and comply with court orders, resulting in disbarment by a federal court and public censure with probation by the New Mexico Supreme Court (para 16).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney’s repeated neglect, failure to communicate, and refusal to comply with court orders demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. They emphasized the harm caused to clients and the judicial system and sought a three-year suspension with conditions (paras 2, 9-10, 13-14).
- Respondent (Attorney): Admitted to the allegations but argued that the failures were isolated incidents caused by personal and emotional problems. The attorney claimed to be addressing these issues and sought leniency, citing a good reputation as a trial lawyer and the absence of dishonest motives (paras 4-5, 15).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney’s conduct violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, including diligence, communication, and competence?
- Should the attorney’s prior disciplinary history and personal issues be considered aggravating or mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sanction?
- What disciplinary measures are necessary to protect the public and ensure compliance with professional standards?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for three years, with the second and third years deferred in favor of supervised probation, subject to specific conditions (paras 1, 23-25).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Joseph F. Baca, Justice Gene E. Franchini, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes:
The Court found that the attorney’s repeated neglect of clients’ cases, failure to communicate, and refusal to comply with court orders violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including diligence, communication, and competence (paras 11-12). The attorney’s prior disciplinary history, including similar misconduct and failure to comply with a 1989 order for alcohol counseling, was considered an aggravating factor (paras 14, 16-17).
While the attorney’s good reputation and absence of dishonest motives were mitigating factors, the Court emphasized the need to protect the public and the integrity of the legal system. The attorney’s ongoing recalcitrance and failure to demonstrate prolonged rehabilitation from personal issues necessitated a period of actual suspension to ensure compliance with treatment and professional standards (paras 18-22).
The Court imposed a three-year suspension, with the second and third years deferred, contingent on the attorney’s adherence to conditions, including counseling, abstinence from alcohol, random drug testing, and supervised probation (paras 23-25).