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, was found to have committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in three separate client matters. These included failing to act competently, failing to consult with or inform clients, and retaliating against a former client who filed a disciplinary complaint. The attorney's conduct also included inadequate communication and case management, as well as obstruction of the disciplinary process (paras 2-9).
Procedural History
- Disciplinary Board: Found the attorney violated several Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a 12-month suspension, deferred under probationary terms (paras 1, 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's conduct violated multiple professional rules, including competence, diligence, communication, and cooperation with the disciplinary process. Recommended suspension and probationary conditions (paras 1, 10).
- Respondent (Attorney): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act competently, diligently, and communicate effectively with clients?
- Did the attorney improperly retaliate against a former client for filing a disciplinary complaint?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the attorney's misconduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 12 months, with the suspension deferred under probationary terms and conditions (para 11).
Reasons
Per Curiam (Montgomery CJ, Ransom, Baca, Franchini, and Frost JJ.):
The Court adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board. The attorney's misconduct included failing to act competently and diligently in representing clients, failing to communicate adequately, and retaliating against a former client for filing a disciplinary complaint. The Court emphasized that such retaliation undermines public confidence in the disciplinary process and will not be tolerated. The attorney's prior informal admonition for similar violations was also considered in determining the appropriate sanction. The Court imposed a 12-month suspension, deferred under strict probationary conditions, including supervision, continuing legal education, and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (paras 1-15).