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 suspended from practicing law in New Mexico for failing to comply with court orders and disciplinary rules. Despite being placed on probation with specific conditions, the attorney violated these terms, leading to the revocation of probation and indefinite suspension. The attorney further failed to comply with Rule 17-212, which required notifying clients, opposing counsel, and courts of the suspension, and filing an affidavit of compliance. The attorney's non-compliance and contemptuous behavior prompted further disciplinary proceedings (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- In re Herkenhoff, 116 N.M. 622, 866 P.2d 350 (1993): The attorney was suspended for an indefinite period not exceeding two years, with the suspension deferred and probation imposed for a minimum of 12 months under specific conditions (para 2).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, May 18, 1994: The attorney's probation was revoked, and the deferred suspension was imposed as an indefinite suspension. The attorney was ordered to comply with Rule 17-212 (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney willfully failed to comply with Rule 17-212 and court orders, demonstrated contemptuous behavior, and should face further sanctions, including disbarment and fines (paras 5-8).
- Attorney (Pro Se): Submitted a response criticizing the disciplinary board, probationary supervisor, and others involved in the proceedings but failed to address the allegations of non-compliance with court orders and Rule 17-212 (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the attorney's failure to comply with Rule 17-212 and court orders warranted further disciplinary action, including disbarment.
- Whether the attorney's mental condition should be considered in determining eligibility for future reinstatement.
Disposition
- The attorney was disbarred from the practice of law, effective January 4, 1994 (para 11).
- The attorney was fined $10 per day for non-compliance with court orders, totaling $1,540, with interest accruing at 15% per annum until paid (para 12).
- The attorney was prohibited from applying for reinstatement until all fines, costs, and interest were paid (para 13).
Reasons
Per curiam (Baca C.J., Ransom, Franchini, Frost, and Minzner JJ.):
- The court emphasized that suspended attorneys remain subject to its jurisdiction and must comply with rules governing the closure of their practice to protect clients and the public (para 9).
- The attorney's refusal to comply with Rule 17-212 and court orders demonstrated willful and inexcusable contempt, undermining the court's authority and the administration of justice (paras 4, 8-9).
- While the disciplinary board recommended requiring a psychological evaluation as a precondition for reinstatement, the court determined that such issues should be addressed during any future reinstatement hearing, where the attorney would bear the burden of proving fitness to practice law (para 10).
- The court adopted the disciplinary board's recommendations, with the exception of the immediate requirement for a psychological evaluation, and imposed disbarment, fines, and conditions for reinstatement (paras 9-13).