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 was retained to pursue a medical malpractice claim related to the death of a nursing home patient. The attorney failed to investigate the case, obtain relevant medical records, or identify witnesses. He also miscalculated the statute of limitations, narrowly avoiding dismissal. After filing the lawsuit, the attorney delayed serving the defendant and took no further action to advance the case, including during settlement discussions and after remand from the Court of Appeals (paras 2-9).
Procedural History
- New Mexico District Court, April 1987: The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired (para 6).
- New Mexico Court of Appeals, October 1987: The dismissal was reversed and remanded, holding that the plaintiff could potentially recover based on the defendant's failure to provide reasonable care up to the time of the patient’s removal from the nursing home (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney demonstrated incompetence, neglect, and failure to communicate with his client, warranting public censure (headnotes; paras 1, 13).
- Attorney (Respondent): Acknowledged errors, including the statute of limitations issue, but argued that the timing of litigation was within his discretion as counsel. He claimed settlement negotiations justified his lack of action (paras 8, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act with competence, diligence, and adequate communication in representing his client?
Disposition
- The attorney was publicly censured for incompetence, lack of diligence, and failure to adequately communicate with his client (para 14).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court found that the attorney violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. His failure to investigate the case, identify witnesses, or obtain relevant documents constituted a lack of competence under Rule 16-101 (paras 12, 14). His inaction over several years, including delays in filing and serving the lawsuit, violated the duty of diligence under Rule 16-103 (paras 11, 14). Additionally, the attorney misled his client about the status of the case, failing to provide accurate and timely updates, which breached Rule 16-104(A) (para 9).
The Court emphasized that a license to practice law is a privilege that carries the responsibility to serve clients diligently and competently. The attorney’s prior informal admonition for similar misconduct further justified public censure under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (para 13). The Court ordered the censure to be published and required the attorney to pay the costs of the proceeding (paras 14-16).