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 petitioner, an attorney, sought reinstatement to the practice of law after being suspended on October 10, 1990, due to professional misconduct. The suspension was imposed by the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The petitioner had undergone disciplinary proceedings and sought to return to practice under specific conditions (para 1).
Procedural History
- In re Tapia, 110 N.M. 693, 799 P.2d 129 (1990): The Supreme Court of New Mexico suspended the petitioner from the practice of law due to professional misconduct (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued for reinstatement to the practice of law, agreeing to comply with probationary conditions and demonstrating efforts to rehabilitate (N/A).
- Disciplinary Board: Recommended that the petitioner be reinstated on a probationary basis with specific terms and conditions to ensure compliance with professional standards (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the petitioner should be reinstated to the practice of law following suspension.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the petitioner’s reinstatement to ensure compliance with professional and ethical standards.
Disposition
- The petitioner was reinstated to the practice of law on a probationary basis for a period of two years, subject to specific terms and conditions (para 2).
Reasons
Per curiam (Ransom C.J., Baca, Montgomery, Franchini, and Frost JJ. concurring):
The Court agreed with the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation to reinstate the petitioner on a probationary basis. The conditions of probation were designed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with professional and ethical standards. These conditions included supervision by a probation monitor, regular reporting, psychotherapy, and adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the laws of New Mexico. The Court emphasized that any violation of these conditions could result in further disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment (paras 1-3).
The Court also required the petitioner to pay the costs of the proceedings before reinstatement and ordered the publication of the decision to ensure transparency and accountability (paras 6-7).