Kraemer, Matter of, 16561
| Citation | 1991 NMSC 54,811 P.2d 1312,112 N.M. 101 |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 16561,16561 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William L. KRAEMER, An Attorney Suspended from Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This matter is before the court following disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to the Rules Governing Discipline, SCRA 1986, 17-101 to -316 (Repl.Pamp.1988 & Cum.Supp.1990), in which attorney William L. Kraemer, in accordance with an agreement for discipline by consent, admitted to various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, SCRA 1986, 16-101 to -805 (Repl.Pamp.1988 & Cum.Supp.1990). Pursuant to Rule 17-211(B)(1)(a), we adopt the Disciplinary Board's recommendation that the conditional agreement and consent to discipline be accepted and that Kraemer be disbarred pursuant to Rule 17-206(A)(1).
On May 13, 1986, Kraemer was convicted by way of a jury verdict in the Second Judicial District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, of the crime of fraudulent and other prohibited practices in connection with the sale of securities (securities fraud), a felony offense in violation of Colo.Rev.Stat.1973, Section 11-51-123(1)(c) (1983 Supp.). On the basis of the conviction, this court summarily suspended Kraemer from the practice of law on September 3, 1986, pursuant to Rule 12(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Discipline (now SCRA 1986, 17-207(A)(1)) and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Board for further proceedings.
Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the filing of formal charges against Kraemer on September 12, 1986, alleging, on the basis of Kraemer's felony conviction, violations of Rules 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility (now SCRA 1986, 16-804(B), 16-804(C), 16-804(D), and 16-804(H), respectively.) Kraemer filed his answer in a timely fashion admitting the fact of his conviction but denying any unethical conduct. The scheduled hearing was vacated with the consent of all parties pending the outcome of Kraemer's appeal of his conviction. On February 22, 1990, Kraemer's conviction was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. People v. Kraemer, 795 P.2d 1371 (Colo.App.), cert. denied, (1990).
At a disciplinary hearing held on March 7, 1991, Kraemer agreed not to contest allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guidance Endodontics Llc v. Dentsply Int'l Inc.
...set forth in Section (D) must be present in the examples delineated in subsections (1) through (17).” Stevenson v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 112 N.M. at 101, 811 P.2d at 1312. Accordingly, the false and misleading statement is the core of an NMUPA claim, and the failure to provide the quality or......
-
In re Treinen
...probation. See, e.g., In re Lopez, 116 N.M. 699, 866 P.2d 1166 (1994); In re Bryan, 116 N.M. 745, 867 P.2d 415 (1993); In re Kraemer, 112 N.M. 101, 811 P.2d 1312 (1991); In re McCulloch, 103 N.M. 542, 710 P.2d 736 (1985); In re Griffin, 101 N.M. 1, 677 P.2d 614; In re Norrid, 100 N.M. 326, ......
-
Hauff v. Petterson
...offered no evidence that defendants made knowing misrepresentations “at the time” services were contracted for); cf. Stevenson, 811 P.2d at 1312 (reversing judgment for plaintiff where “evidence was never presented that [the defendant] knowingly made any false or misleading statement of any......
-
IN THE MATTER OF KEY
...113 N.M. 24, 822 P.2d 121 (1992) (attorney disbarred for conviction of crime of receiving bribe by public official); In re Kraemer, 112 N.M. 101, 811 P.2d 101 (1991) (attorney disbarred for conviction of securities fraud); In re McCulloch, 103 N.M. 542, 710 P.2d 736 (1985) (attorney disbarr......