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 convicted of a fourth-degree felony for attempting to evade or defeat taxes owed by his professional corporations. The conviction stemmed from a plea agreement in which the attorney admitted guilt and agreed to pay $50,000 in unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties. The attorney was sentenced to five years of incarceration, which was suspended in favor of probation, along with community service obligations (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 10, 1993: The attorney was convicted of a fourth-degree felony for attempting to evade or defeat taxes and sentenced to five years of incarceration, suspended in favor of probation (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's conviction for tax evasion constituted a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 16-804(B) and 16-804(H), and recommended suspension from the practice of law (paras 1, 5).
- Respondent (Attorney): Contended that his conviction did not constitute a "serious crime" under Rule 16-804(B) and that his conduct did not adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law under Rule 16-804(H). He also argued that his actions did not harm any clients and sought to distinguish his case from prior disciplinary precedents (paras 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's conviction for tax evasion constitute a violation of Rule 16-804(B) as a "serious crime" reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer?
- Did the attorney's conduct violate Rule 16-804(H) by adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law?
- Should the attorney be suspended from the practice of law while on probation for a criminal conviction?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from the practice of law effective May 16, 1994, pursuant to Rule 17-206(A)(2) (para 9).
- The attorney may be reinstated upon successful completion of probation, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and payment of costs, but not before May 16, 1995 (para 10).
- Upon reinstatement, the attorney will be placed on probation for one year under supervision (para 11).
Reasons
Per Curiam (Montgomery, Ransom, Baca, Franchini, and Frost JJ.):
The Court found that the attorney's conviction for tax evasion constituted a "serious crime" under Rule 16-804(B) because it reflected adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness. The Court emphasized that the purpose of attorney discipline is not only to protect clients but also to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. Allowing an attorney on probation for a criminal conviction to continue practicing law would undermine public confidence in the legal system (paras 5, 8).
The Court rejected the attorney's argument that his case was distinguishable from prior precedents, such as In re Norrid, reaffirming its policy that attorneys on probation for criminal acts should not be permitted to practice law. The Court noted that the attorney's conduct, while not directly harming clients, violated the laws he was sworn to uphold and diminished respect for the legal profession (paras 6-8).
The Court ordered the attorney's suspension, with conditions for reinstatement, including the successful completion of probation, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and payment of costs. Upon reinstatement, the attorney would be subject to an additional year of probation under supervision to ensure compliance with tax obligations and professional standards (paras 9-11).