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, H. Daniel Fandey, was retained by multiple clients for various legal matters, including bankruptcy, DWI defense, personal injury, divorce, and real estate disputes. In each case, Fandey failed to fulfill his professional obligations, including filing necessary documents, appearing at hearings, communicating with clients, and managing his caseload. His office was eventually closed, and he ceased communication with clients, leaving them to seek alternative representation. Additionally, Fandey faced disciplinary proceedings in California for aiding a client in evading a child support order (paras 2-19).
Procedural History
- California Disciplinary Proceedings: Fandey was disciplined in California for aiding a client in evading a child support order, resulting in a three-year suspension (stayed), probation for three years, and a one-year actual suspension (para 19).
- New Mexico Disciplinary Proceedings: The Disciplinary Board of New Mexico initiated proceedings against Fandey for multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (paras 1, 19).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that Fandey violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failure to communicate with clients, failure to act with diligence, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. The Board recommended suspension and probation with conditions (paras 1-19, 23-27).
- Respondent (H. Daniel Fandey): Did not contest the allegations and consented to discipline, citing psychological and emotional difficulties as contributing factors to his misconduct (paras 1, 21).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's conduct violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of multiple clients?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the attorney's misconduct?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico approved the agreement not to contest and consent to discipline, suspending Fandey from the practice of law for one year, followed by a one-year probationary period with conditions (paras 23-27).
Reasons
Per curiam (Baca, Ransom, Franchini, and Frost JJ.):
The Court found that Fandey's conduct violated numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failure to act with diligence, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. The Court noted that Fandey's misconduct stemmed from psychological or emotional difficulties unrelated to substance abuse, which impaired his ability to manage his caseload and exercise sound judgment. The Court emphasized the need for rehabilitation and imposed conditions for reinstatement, including psychiatric evaluation, compliance with licensing requirements, and supervision during probation. The disciplinary action was deemed appropriate to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession (paras 21-27).