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 placed on probation following a conditional agreement not to contest and consent to discipline. The conditions of probation required compliance with directives from a supervising attorney regarding trust account management and cooperation with audits of the trust account. The attorney failed to provide required documentation, did not cooperate with the audits, and claimed that his noncompliance was due to a lack of activity in the trust account and time constraints from running an unrelated business.
Procedural History
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, August 18, 1994: The attorney was placed on probation under a conditional agreement not to contest and consent to discipline.
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney failed to comply with the conditions of probation, including directives from the supervising attorney and cooperation with trust account audits.
- Attorney (Respondent): Claimed that there was no activity in the trust account, the audit period was inconsistent with the probation order, and his obligations to an unrelated business prevented compliance.
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney fail to comply with the conditions of probation imposed by the court?
- Should the deferred status of the attorney's indefinite suspension be revoked?
Disposition
- The attorney was found in contempt of the court's order of August 18, 1994.
- The deferred status of the attorney's indefinite suspension was revoked until compliance with all conditions of probation is demonstrated.
- Reinstatement will be automatic upon showing compliance, with any remaining probationary period to continue until August 18, 1996, if reinstatement occurs before that date.
Reasons
Per curiam (Baca C.J., Ransom, Franchini, Frost, and Minzner JJ.):
The court found that the attorney failed to comply with the conditions of probation, including providing required documentation to the supervising attorney and cooperating with trust account audits. The attorney's defenses, including claims of no trust account activity, disputes over the audit period, and time constraints from an unrelated business, were deemed insufficient to justify noncompliance. The court emphasized that strict compliance with probation conditions is necessary to retain the privilege of practicing law. The attorney's indifference to his obligations warranted revocation of the deferred suspension.