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, while a shareholder in a law firm, misappropriated funds from the firm, its clients, and a special trust account for an estate. The attorney engaged in fraudulent activities, including creating a secret trust account, falsifying billing correspondence, and intercepting client payments. Over $91,000 was misappropriated, with funds used for personal expenses. The attorney attempted to conceal the misconduct through deceptive practices and partial restitution after discovery (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- Disciplinary Board, December 28, 2000: The law firm filed a complaint with the disciplinary board after discovering the attorney's misconduct (para 3).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, August 1, 2001: The attorney was summarily suspended following a joint petition by disciplinary counsel and the attorney's counsel (para 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's misappropriation of funds, fraudulent conduct, and violations of professional conduct rules warranted disbarment (paras 1, 13-14).
- Respondent (Attorney): Acknowledged the misconduct, expressed intent to make restitution, and consented to disbarment under specific conditions, including a two-year waiting period for reinstatement eligibility (paras 4, 16-17).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's actions constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including misappropriation of funds and fraudulent conduct?
- What is the appropriate sanction for the attorney's misconduct?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico disbarred the attorney, effective August 1, 2001, with a minimum two-year waiting period before eligibility to apply for reinstatement (paras 26, 30).
Reasons
Per curiam (Serna CJ, Baca, Franchini, Minzner, and Maes JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the attorney violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including engaging in fraudulent conduct, failing to safeguard client and third-party funds, and engaging in dishonesty and deceit (paras 13-14). Disbarment was deemed the appropriate sanction, consistent with precedent for intentional misappropriation of funds (para 14). The Court emphasized that restitution made under pressure does not mitigate the severity of the misconduct (para 19). The two-year waiting period for reinstatement eligibility, coupled with strict conditions for any future legal or quasi-legal work, was considered appropriate given the attorney's cooperation and acceptance of responsibility (paras 16-17, 21). The Court also highlighted the importance of safeguarding trust within law firms and the legal profession (paras 18, 23).