Morris, In re

• Decision Date: 26 October 1964
• Docket Number: No. 7568,7568
• Citation: 74 N.M. 679,1964 NMSC 235,397 P.2d 475
• Parties: , 17 A.L.R.3d 681 In the Matter of Charles N. MORRIS, Attorney at Law.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 475

397 P.2d 475

74 N.M. 679, 17 A.L.R.3d 681

In the Matter of Charles N. MORRIS, Attorney at Law.

No. 7568.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 26, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1965.

C. M. Neal, Hobbs, Lon P. Watkins, Carlsbad, for respondent.

Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Donnelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for relator.

Robert S. Skinner, Raton, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Disciplinary proceedings against respondent, Charles N. Morris, were instituted by the committee on ethics, grievance and discipline of the state bar association because, as charged therein, respondent had been 'convicted of the felony of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Section 40-24-7, 1953 N.M.S.A., in the District Court of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, in Criminal Cause 11,060 on the Docket of said court.' After notice and hearing, as provided in our rules for disciplinary proceedings, Sec. 21-2-1(3)(3) (Part 1), N.M.S.A.1953, the board of bar commissioners made findings of fact and conclusions with a recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period. The matter was then docketed in this court, exceptions to the report filed by respondent, the record certified by the commissioners, briefs filed, oral argument presented, and is now ripe for decision.

Although 15 exceptions were taken by respondent to the report of the bar commission, these are consolidated into 8 points relied on for reversal and further grouped into 4 headings for argument.

The rule making power in connection with admitting and disciplining attorneys, inherent in this court, was recognized by our legislature when by Ch. 96, N.M.S.L.1941 (Sec. 18-1-1, N.M.S.A.1953) it was stated that the Supreme Court should 'by rules promulgated from time to time define and regulate the practice of law within the State of New Mexico. * * *'

In August, 1960, effective November 1, 1960, this court promulgated the rules for disciplinary proceedings now in force and applicable in this proceeding. We quote from the preamble:

'The purpose of discipline of lawyers is the protection of the public, the profession, and the administration of justice, and not the punishment of the person disciplined.

'Only persons of integrity and good character should be permitted to practice law.

'Persons admitted to practice law in this state are a part of the judicial system of the state and officers of its courts.

'A license to practice law confers no vested right, but is a conditional privilege, revocable for cause.

'This court has the inherent power and the duty to prescribe the qualifications that shall be required for admission to practice law; to admit persons to practice law; to prescribe standards of conduct for lawyers; to determine what constitutes grounds for the discipline of lawyers; to discipline, for cause, persons admitted to practice law in this state; and to revoke the license of every lawyer whose unfitness to practice law has been duly established. * * *'

We also quote the following pertinent portions of the rules:

'2.01 All of the members of the bar have taken an oath to support the Constitution and the laws of this state and of the United States. As officers of the court, they are charged with obedience to these laws, both in and out of court, and to observe the high standards of professional conduct. Traditionally, standards for lawyers have been higher than expected of laymen. A license to practice law is a proclamation by this court that the holder is one to whom the public may entrust professional matters. The lawyers must be true to that trust and his confidential relationship to his client, whether such client be a public body or a private individual.

'2.02 The court does not undertake by these rules to promulgate a code governing all causes for discipline. The enumeration here of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive, nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof by this court.

'2.03 The fact that certain acts of unprofessional conduct may at times have remained unchallenged shall not excuse a wrongdoer.

'2.04 The commission of any act contrary to honesty, justice or good morals, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, constitutes a cause for discipline. If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to discipline. * * * (Emphasis supplied)

'2.05 The fact that an act is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se shall not, in and of itself, constitute a defense to a charge of misconduct.

'2.06 * * * Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the respondent, (emphasis supplied) and a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, where followed by a judgment of conviction, shall be deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this rule.'

The issues presented for our determination may be summarized as follows: Is disciplinary action under the above quoted rules indicated when a member of the bar is guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter resulting from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor? Stated otherwise, is the offense an act 'contrary to honesty, justice or good morals'? In addition, is the offense one involving moral turpitude so that conviction thereof is conclusive proof of guilt of a character requiring disbarring or suspending from the practice?

Respondent's argument is that driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a misdemeanor and a petty offense with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and $200.00 fine (Hamilton v. Walker, 65 N.M. 470, 340 P.2d 407) and this being true, the untoward or unintended result of such an act--in this instance the death of five people--would not alter the nature of the act. We are unable to agree with the argument. Respondent has pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter which was defined in Sec. 40-24-7, N.M.S.A.1953, as the '* * * unlawful killing of a human being without malice' and in the instant case arose out of the 'commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.' Sec. 40-24-10, N.M.S.A.1953, provided punishment upon conviction of 'imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of not less than one year nor more than ten years.' The fault with this argument was pointed up in Hamilton v. Walker, supra, wherein two Supreme Court cases were discussed: District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63, 51 S.Ct. 52, 75 L.Ed. 177, and District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843. Both cases involved violations of city ordinances but, whereas in the Colts case the offense charged and the penalty provided for did not make the offense a petty one which could be tried without a jury, in the Clawans case these elements differed so the violation was in the petty offense class. Similarly, here, whereas the first offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor when considered with the penalty provided was held by us to be a petty offense, it does not follow that the offense of involuntary manslaughter, which requires a much greater penalty, is likewise a petty offense. Under our law it is clearly a felony.

While not prepared to declare that in every case where a felony has been committed by a member of the bar disciplinary action is justified or required, as contended by the board of bar commissioners, we must concede that we have difficulty in imagining what kind of a felony could be considered as not being 'contrary to honesty, justice or good morals.' As stated in Sec. 2.01, quoted above, as members of the bar, lawyers are charged with obedience to the laws they are sworn to uphold. Further, as stated in Sec. 2.02, supra, the rules do not purport to be all-inclusive as to causes for discipline. It is quite apparent to us that Sec. 2.04 recites the basis upon which discipline is required, viz., 'any act contrary to honesty, justice or good morals.' That the act may or may not be a misdemeanor or a felony, is purely coincidental. Similarly, moral turpitude is not a consideration. If a member of the bar commits a crime involving moral turpitude, this fact is conclusive against him and discipline is required. (Sec. 2.06) However, whether the misconduct with which a person is charged is a crime involving moral turpitude or, if a crime, whether it is malum prohibitum or malum in se (Sec. 2.05); or, for that matter, if the act is neither a felony or misdemeanor, is not the issue. The true question is: Was the act to which respondent pleaded guilty 'contrary to honesty, justice or good morals'?

Viewing the situation before us, we are forced to the conclusion that the conduct of respondent constituted a serious breach by him of his oath to obey the laws, and the commission of the offense constituted conduct contrary to justice and good morals and accordingly supports the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the board of bar commissioners. We attach no significance to the fact that at the time of the commission of the act to which respondent pleaded guilty he was serving as an assistant district attorney.

We have given serious consideration to the case of Baker v. Miller, 236 Ind. 20, 138 N.E.2d 145, 59 A.L.R.2d 1393, relied on and quoted from at length by respondent. As stated above, we do not consider moral turpitude a necessary element to support discipline, or, that it may be synonymous with 'conduct contrary to honesty, justice or good morals.' In re Jacoby, 74 Ohio App. 147, 57 N.E.2d 932. The Baker v. Miller case, supra, discusses this subject with particular reference to violation of our federal income tax statutes, and concludes that the charge filed in the disbarment...