AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 due to violations of probation terms and conditions. Additional allegations of professional misconduct were filed, including failure to segregate and account for client funds. The attorney admitted to the charges and sought permission to resign from the practice of law, agreeing to reimburse a former client and cover disciplinary costs (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• In re Norton, 109 N.M. 616, 788 P.2d 372 (1990): The attorney was placed on probation for professional misconduct (para 2).
• In re Norton, 112 N.M. 75, 811 P.2d 573 (1991): The attorney was suspended for violating the terms of probation (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Disciplinary Board: Supported the attorney's application to resign, noting the attorney's admission of misconduct and agreement to reimburse the client and pay disciplinary costs (para 2).
• Respondent (Attorney): Admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct, sought resignation in lieu of further disciplinary proceedings, and agreed to reimburse the client and cover costs (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Should the attorney be permitted to resign from the practice of law in lieu of further disciplinary proceedings?

Disposition

• The attorney was permitted to resign from the practice of law effective September 30, 1991, with conditions for reimbursement and restrictions on readmission (paras 5-7).

Reasons

Per curiam:

The Court distinguished this case from prior precedent involving disbarment for intentional misconduct, noting that while the attorney failed to properly account for client funds, there was no conclusive evidence of conversion for personal use. The attorney's cooperation in admitting wrongdoing and seeking resignation before a full disciplinary hearing also mitigated the need for disbarment. The resignation, subject to conditions, was deemed sufficient to protect the public. The Court emphasized that the attorney could only seek readmission with its approval, aligning the resignation's effect with that of disbarment (paras 3-4).