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 engaged in professional misconduct in two separate cases. In the first case, he filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in state court but failed to comply with federal court procedures after the case was removed, including practicing without proper admission, missing hearings, and making false statements to the court (paras 2-9). In the second case, he represented a client in a water rights dispute, charged excessive fees, and failed to competently present the case, leading to a directed verdict against his client (paras 10-12).
Procedural History
- Federal Court, July 21, 1997: The federal judge dismissed the wrongful termination case without prejudice for failure to prosecute (para 4).
- Federal Court, November 20, 1997: The case was dismissed with prejudice after the attorney failed to provide truthful explanations for his conduct (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including dishonesty, failure to expedite litigation, and charging excessive fees (paras 9, 13, 17).
- Attorney: Claimed mitigating factors such as alcoholism, depression, and recent hospitalization but failed to provide sufficient evidence or cooperate with the disciplinary investigation (paras 18-19).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct through his actions in the wrongful termination case?
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by charging excessive fees and failing to competently represent his client in the water rights case?
- Should mitigating factors such as the attorney's health conditions affect the disciplinary sanctions imposed?
Disposition
- The attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of three years (para 21).
- The attorney was ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to his client in the water rights case, plus costs (para 22).
- Specific conditions were imposed for any future reinstatement, including passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and demonstrating fitness to practice law (para 23).
Reasons
Per curiam (Minzner CJ, Baca, Franchini, and Serna JJ.):
The Court found that the attorney committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including dishonesty, failure to expedite litigation, practicing without proper admission, and charging excessive fees (paras 9, 13, 17). Despite mitigating factors such as the attorney's alcoholism and depression, the Court emphasized its duty to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. The attorney's lack of cooperation with the disciplinary process and failure to seek assistance for his impairments further justified the sanctions imposed (paras 18-19). The Court also determined that restitution to the client in the water rights case was necessary, given the excessive fees charged (para 20).