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, represented a client in a worker's compensation case and received settlement funds on behalf of the client. The attorney deposited the funds into her trust account but subsequently converted $37,333 of the client's money for personal use. Over several months, the attorney misled the client about the availability of the funds, made partial restitution, and later self-reported her misconduct to disciplinary authorities (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Discipline Committee, November 27, 1995: The attorney submitted a letter reporting her misconduct at the request of disciplinary counsel (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney's actions, including conversion of client funds, dishonesty, and failure to make full restitution, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and warranted disbarment (paras 1, 7).
- Attorney (Respondent): Acknowledged her misconduct, cited personal hardships as mitigating factors, and argued that her self-reporting, cooperation, partial restitution, and remorse should be considered in determining the sanction (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's actions, including conversion of client funds and dishonesty, violate the Rules of Professional Conduct?
- What is the appropriate sanction for the attorney's misconduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in New Mexico (para 10).
- Conditions for reinstatement were imposed, including full restitution to the client, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, payment of disciplinary proceeding costs, and submission of a psychological evaluation (paras 11-12).
Reasons
Per Curiam (Franchini CJ, Ransom, Baca, and Minzner JJ.):
The Court found that the attorney's conversion of client funds demonstrated a selfish and dishonest motive, a pattern of misconduct, and a lack of good faith. The client was particularly vulnerable due to limited English proficiency and education. Aggravating factors included the attorney's substantial experience in law and submission of false statements during the disciplinary process. While mitigating factors such as personal hardships, self-reporting, cooperation, partial restitution, and remorse were acknowledged, they were insufficient to prevent disbarment. The Court emphasized that theft of client funds is intolerable and warrants the most severe sanction to uphold the integrity of the legal profession (paras 7-9).