Chavez v. State Workers' Comp. Admin.

• Decision Date: 26 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 30,405.,30,405.
• Citation: 280 P.3d 927,2012 -NMCA- 060
• Parties: Gene N. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff/Petitioner–Appellee, v. STATE of New Mexico WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, Defendant/Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

280 P.3d 927

2012 -NMCA- 060

Gene N. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff/Petitioner–Appellee,

v.STATE of New Mexico WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, Defendant/Respondent–Appellant.

No. 30,405.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

April 26, 2012.

Gene N. Chavez, Chavez Law Offices, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellee.

Sean Olivas, Keleher & McLeod, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

{1} This case presents us with an issue of first impression: whether the Workers' CompensationAdministration (WCA) has authority to suspend an attorney from practicing before it. We conclude that the WCA has such authority. This authority arises out of the power of the WCA to control the proceedings before it, and an attorney who violates its rules of practice and procedure may properly be sanctioned by the WCA. Furthermore, the power to suspend the attorney is separate and apart from, and does not infringe upon, the Supreme Court's exclusive authority to discipline attorneys. The district court having concluded otherwise, we reverse in part, and affirm in part.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} This case commenced when the Director of the WCA filed a pleading in the WCA entitled, “In the Matter of Enforcement of the Workers' Compensation Act With Respect to: Gene Chavez, Esq.” Chavez is an attorney who practices before the WCA, and the Director proposed that Chavez be assessed administrative penalties for seventeen (17) separate violations of the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 52–1–1 to –70 (1929, as amended through 2007), and Rules. Specifically, the Director alleged that Chavez willfully refused to participate in the mediation process in three (3) different instances; that Chavez willfully disregarded the rights of the parties in eight (8) different instances; that Chavez advocated meritless claims in four (4) separate instances; and that Chavez behaved in a non-courteous and disrespectful manner in two (2) separate instances, all in violation of applicable Rules of the WCA. The Director proposed assessing a penalty of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000), and a three (3) month suspension of the right to practice before the WCA. See § 52–1–61 (authorizing a $1000 fine for each violation of the Act or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the Act); 11.4.3.13(B) NMAC (11/30/2004) (authorizing the WCA to suspend an attorney for engaging in or advocating meritless claims or defenses before the WCA).

{3} Chavez hired counsel, and the parties ultimately entered into a Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Chavez agreed to: (1) engage in professional conduct and adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Act and Rules; (2) successfully complete a three-month monitoring period by retired District Judge Diane Dal Santo who would act as an independent observer or monitor to evaluate and/or investigate any complaints against Chavez for any conduct prohibited by the Act or Rules; complete a professionalism course approved by the New Mexico State Bar in addition to the usual professionalism credit that is already required; (4) pay an administrative assessment of $2,750 to the WCA; and (5) voluntarily refrain from handling workers' compensation cases for thirty (30) days.

{4} Chavez further agreed “if any of the terms set forth above are not completed that the WCA has the right to file that certain Stipulated Order executed contemporaneously with this Settlement Agreement and incorporated herein.” The Stipulated Order recites that the WCA and Director have personal and subject matter jurisdiction; that a material breach of the Settlement Agreement has occurred; and that Chavez does not dispute the allegations contained in the Director's initial filing alleging seventeen (17) separate violations of the Act and Rules. The Stipulated Order then orders that Chavez is “suspended from the practice of workers' cases, which includes appearing/attending mediations, hearings, trials, etc., or generating any fees associated with workers' compensation matters, which will become effective and begin on the date of the filing of this Order.”

{5} Chavez entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Judge Dal Santo, agreeing that she would monitor his professional conduct before the WCA for a period of three months. During the observation period, three complaints were filed against Chavez with the WCA, and the WCA forwarded them to Judge Dal Santo. After investigating the complaints, Judge Dal Santo submitted two reports to the WCA setting forth her conclusions that Chavez had committed numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The violations included making false statements to a tribunal, failing to allow a client to make the decision regarding settlement, failing to communicate with clients, failing to give notice to a client he was withdrawing, and failing to return the client's papers to him. Upon its receipt of Judge Dal Santo's reports, the WCA filed the Stipulated Order suspending Chavez from practicing before the WCA.

{6} Chavez filed a petition for writ of certiorari and petition for stay in the district court. The district court ultimately determined that the WCA did not have authority to suspend Chavez and ordered that the Stipulated Order be reversed on grounds that the Settlement Agreement was ultra vires and void ab initio. The WCA appeals.

III. ANALYSIS

{7} The WCA presents two arguments on appeal. First, the WCA asserts that the district court erred in denying its motion to dismiss when Chavez failed to file a statement of review issues as required by Rule 1–075(J) NMRA. Secondly, the WCA contends that the district court erred in concluding that the Settlement Agreement is void on the grounds that the WCA did not have authority to suspend Chavez from practicing before the agency. We address each argument in turn.

A. WCA's Motion to Dismiss Chavez's Appeal

{8} No statutory right is provided to review the WCA order in this case. Accordingly, Rule 1–075 governed the proceedings in the district court. Rule 1–075(A) (“This rule governs writs of certiorari to administrative officers and agencies pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution when there is no statutory right to an appeal or other statutory right of review.”).

{9} Chavez failed to file a “statement of review issues” in the district court as required by Rule 1–075(J), which states that a statement of review issues “shall be filed with the district court.” The WCA therefore filed a motion to dismiss Chavez's appeal, and the district court denied the motion. Our review of this ruling is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion. SeeRule 1–075(W)(1), (4) (stating that the failure to file a statement of review issues “may be deemed sufficient grounds for dismissal of the appeal by the district court” and further providing that for any failure to comply with the rules, the district court may “take such action as it deems appropriate”).

{10} The district court reasoned that dismissal of the appeal was not warranted because “[Chavez] complied with the substance of Rule 1–075[, and b] oth parties sufficiently briefed the issues in this matter when the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Request for Stay were filed.” The court also noted that “[t]he parties' briefing amply addressed the relevant issues and therefore, Petitioner's failure to file ‘Statement of Review Issues' is not a material breach mandating dismissal.” Thus, although Chavez failed to file a “statement of review issues” as required, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the WCA's motion to dismiss under these circumstances. See Sims v. Sims, 1996–NMSC–078, ¶ 65, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and circumstances of the case.”).

B. Authority of the WCA to Suspend Chavez From Practicing Before the Agency

{11} The district court ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered by the WCA and Chavez is void because the WCA had neither inherent, nor statutory authority to suspend an attorney from its court. The court reasoned that because the Supreme Court has exclusive authority to impose discipline on practicing attorneys in New Mexico, the WCA has no inherent authority to enter into a Settlement Agreement to suspend an attorney from practicing before the WCA. Further, the district court concluded that in suspending Chavez, the WCA exceeded the statutory authority granted to it by the Legislature. Finally, the district court declared that the terms of the Settlement Agreement do not comply with existing case law granting courts inherent power to suspend attorneys and that the Settlement Agreement was filed without granting him an opportunity to be heard, and without notice to him, in violation of his right to due process of law. Our review of these statutory and constitutionalissues is de novo. See State ex rel. Jud. Standards Comm'n v. Espinosa, 2003–NMSC–017, ¶ 5, 134 N.M. 59, 73 P.3d 197.

1. Inherent Authority and the Supreme Court's Exclusive Authority to Discipline Attorneys

{12} The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to discipline attorneys in New Mexico. See In re Treinen, 2006–NMSC–013, ¶ 6, 139 N.M. 318, 131 P.3d 1282 (noting that the Supreme Court “has the sole authority to direct what constitutes grounds for the discipline of lawyers”); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 54, 519 P.2d 288, 290 (1974) (stating that the power of suspension or disbarment of an attorney is a judicial power to be ultimately exercised by the Supreme Court), abrogated on other grounds by In re Bristol, 2006–NMSC–041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905.Rule 17–201 NMRA codifies the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction in providing that every attorney who practices law in New Mexico “is subject to the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” This authority emanates from the New Mexico Constitution,...