In re Ayala, S-1-SC-39074

Case DateDecember 01, 2022
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico


No. S-1-SC-39074

Supreme Court of New Mexico

December 1, 2022

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

An Attorney Disbarred from the Practice of Law Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico

Jane Gagne Albuquerque, NM for Petitioner the New Mexico Disciplinary Board

Anthony J. Ayala Albuquerque, NM Respondent


C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

{¶1} WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon the recommendation of Petitioner the New Mexico Disciplinary Board for discipline, together with its findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that Respondent ANTHONY J. AYALA be disbarred, motion for hearing, the parties' briefs, and oral arguments by the parties heard September 13, 2022;

{¶2} WHEREAS, the Disciplinary Board having considered this matter pursuant to Rules 17-314 and 17-315 NMRA, and having concluded that substantial evidence supported Respondent's violation of the following Rules of Professional Conduct: (1) Rule 16-101 NMRA, by failing to provide competent representation; (2) Rule 16-105(A) NMRA, by charging excessive fees; (3) Rule 16-107(A)(2) NMRA, by representing a client when there was a significant risk that his representation was materially limited by his own personal interests; (4) Rule 16-108(A) NMRA, by knowingly acquiring a motor vehicle from his client without disclosing all terms of that acquisition to his client and


without ensuring those terms were fair and reasonable, and by failing to advise his client to seek independent counsel for the transaction without informed written consent of the client declining to seek independent counsel; (5) Rule 16-115(A) NMRA, by failing to separately hold client funds and maintain accurate records; (6) Rule 16-115(D) NMRA, by failing to promptly render a full accounting upon request of his client; and (7) Rule 16-804(D) NMRA, by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice;

{¶3} WHEREAS, pursuant to its constitutional power of superintending control, see N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3, this Court has the inherent authority "to determine what constitutes grounds for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT