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, prior to his admission to the New Mexico Bar, was involved in a physical altercation with a former girlfriend near a border patrol checkpoint after purchasing drugs in Mexico. The altercation resulted in the girlfriend sustaining serious injuries. The attorney failed to disclose his subsequent criminal indictment for aggravated battery and false imprisonment on his bar application, despite being under an obligation to update it. He was later convicted of these charges and placed on probation after being admitted to the bar (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- [Not applicable or not found]
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Counsel: Argued that the attorney violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to disclose his criminal indictment on his bar application and by engaging in dishonest conduct. They recommended suspension as the appropriate sanction (paras 5-6).
- Respondent (Attorney): Contended that his failure to update the bar application was unintentional and that his continued practice of law would not endanger the public. He argued that suspension was too severe a sanction given the timing of his conduct and his subsequent professional behavior (paras 6, 14-15).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to disclose his criminal indictment on his bar application?
- Should the attorney be disciplined for pre-admission conduct that was discovered after his admission to the bar?
- Is suspension the appropriate sanction for the attorney's conduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from the practice of law until January 23, 2007, coinciding with the end of his criminal probation (para 18).
- Additional conditions were imposed, including participation in a monitoring program, random alcohol screening, and passing the ethics portion of the multistate bar exam prior to reinstatement (paras 19-22).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Richard C. Bosson (Minzner, Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the attorney's failure to disclose his criminal indictment on his bar application constituted a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 16-801(B), 16-804(C), and 16-804(H). The Court emphasized the importance of candor and honesty in the bar admission process, noting that the attorney's omission undermined his fitness to practice law (paras 7-9).
The Court rejected the attorney's argument that his failure to disclose was unintentional, citing evidence that he was aware of the potential impact of his criminal conduct on his bar admission. The Court also noted that the attorney's criminal conviction, while occurring after his admission, reflected adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness (paras 10-11).
The Court held that pre-admission conduct could serve as a basis for post-admission discipline, as the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public, the profession, and the administration of justice. The attorney's failure to disclose his indictment and subsequent conviction warranted suspension, consistent with the Court's policy of prohibiting attorneys on probation for serious crimes from practicing law (paras 12-14).
The Court concluded that suspension was necessary to uphold the integrity of the profession and to deter similar conduct, even though the attorney had performed satisfactorily on probation and in his legal practice since admission (paras 15-17).