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 embezzlement exceeding $2,500, a third-degree felony. The attorney admitted to violating multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and agreed that disbarment was an appropriate sanction (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 16, 1992: The attorney was convicted of embezzlement over $2,500 by way of a guilty plea (para 2).
- Disciplinary Board, February 8, 1993: Formal disciplinary charges were filed against the attorney based on the felony conviction (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction (para 1).
- Attorney (pro se): Admitted to the violations and consented to disbarment as part of an agreement for discipline by consent (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the attorney's felony conviction and admitted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct warranted disbarment.
Disposition
- The attorney was disbarred from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 17-206(A)(1) (para 3).
- The attorney may apply for reinstatement three years after disbarment, subject to fulfilling all probation requirements and demonstrating fitness to practice law (paras 4-6).
Reasons
Per curiam:
The Court accepted the agreement for discipline by consent, which included the attorney's admission of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and acknowledgment that disbarment was an appropriate sanction. The Court emphasized that the attorney's felony conviction for embezzlement constituted a serious breach of professional ethics, undermining the integrity of the legal profession. The Court also outlined the conditions for potential reinstatement, requiring the attorney to demonstrate moral qualifications, fitness to practice law, and that reinstatement would not harm the public interest or the administration of justice (paras 1-6).