Patton, In re
Decision Date | 15 February 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 9684,9684 |
Parties | In the Matter of Harry L. PATTON, Attorney at Law. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This original disciplinary proceeding was initiated on March 13, 1973 by a petition of Chief Bar Counsel seeking the institution of proceedings under Supreme Court Rule 3, § 15 (§ 21--2--1(3)(15), N.M.S.A.1953 (Int.Supp. 1972)), which was adopted by this Court and became effective on January 1, 1972. Attached to the petition was a certificate from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico evidencing the conviction of Respondent of the crime of willfully and knowingly failing to make a return of Federal Income Tax for the year 1969 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1954).
After a hearing on the petition and the response thereto, we declined to impose immediate suspension, because the effective date of the rule was subsequent to Respondent's conviction. We did, however, refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board with directions to refer it to an appropriate Hearing Committee for hearing and for further proceedings pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 3, supra.
A Hearing Committee held a hearing, made findings and recommended that Respondent be publicly censured. The matter then came on for hearing before the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 3, § 5(C)(6) and § 8(C) (§ 21--2--1(3)(5)(C)(6) and (8)(C), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, Supp. 1973)). The Disciplinary Board recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety days and assessed all costs against him.
The sole issue to be resolved by us is the nature and extent of the discipline to be imposed. Respondent concedes that he was guilty of professional misconduct which warrants his discipline by this Court, but urges this discipline should be limited to public censure as recommended by the Hearing Committee.
The Hearing Committee made the following findings:
'1. The Respondent is guilty of violating Cannon 32 of the American Bar Association Cannons of Ethics in force in New Mexico prior to February 24, 1971, in that he failed to comply with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7203.
'2. The Respondent is guilty of violating Section 2.04 of Rule Three (3) of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico as the same existed prior to January 1, 1972. * * *'
'3. The Respondent is guilty of violating Section 18--1--17(1), New Mexico Statutes 1953 annotated. (This statute provides: 'An attorney may be disbarred or suspended by the Supreme Court for any of the following causes arising after his admission to practice:
'(1) His conviction of felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude in which case the record of conviction is conclusive;')
As already stated, the Disciplinary Board disagreed with the Hearing Committee and recommended suspension for a period of ninety days.
Although the findings and recommendation of a Hearing Committee are entitled to great weight, the Disciplinary Board is not bound by the Committee's recommendation. Supreme Court Rule 3, § 5(C)(6) and § 8(C), supra. This Court is not bound by a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, although its recommendation must be accorded great weight. Compare in re Nelson, 78 N.M. 739, 437 P.2d 1008 (1968); In re Southerland, 76 N.M. 266, 414 P.2d 495 (1966). In power of suspension or disbarment of an attorney is a judicial power to be ultimately exercised by this Court. In re Gibson,35 N.M. 550, 563--565, 4 P.2d 643, 651 (1931). See also State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bur. of Albuquerque, Inc., 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40 (1973); In re Nelson, supra; In re Southerland, supra. This Supreme Court Rule 3, § 8(C), supra.
Respondent first attacks the Hearing Committee's findings 2 and 3 quoted above. His first contention is that § 18--1--17(1), supra, which he was found to have violated, has been repealed by this Court's adoption of detailed rules governing the discipline of lawyers for professional misconduct. Unquestionably the regulation of the practice of law is the exclusive constitutional prerogative of this Court. State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bur. of Albuquerque, Inc., supra. Legislative attempts to confer any power over the control of the practice of law, including the power of suspension or disbarment, are violative of art. 3, § 1, Constitution of New Mexico. In re Gibson, supra.
However, the Respondent's position is not materially...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc.
-
State ex rel. Frieson v. Isner
... ... See, e.g., Petition of the Florida State Bar Ass'n, 40 So.2d 902 (Fla.1949); Public Service Comm'n v ... Page 656 ... Hahn Transport Inc., 253 Md. 571, 253 A.2d 845, 852 (1969); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 519 P.2d 288, 290 (1974); Calhoun v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 61 Ohio App.2d 1, 15 Ohio Op.3d 13, 399 N.E.2d 559 (1978); State ex rel. McKean v. Graves, 91 Ohio St. 23, 109 N.E. 528 (1914) ... 2 Arriving at a concise definition of what constitutes the practice of law has proven ... ...
-
Salary of Juvenile Director, Matter of
...25 Wash.2d 161, 169 P.2d 706 (1946); to regulate practice of law, See State v. Cook, 84 Wash.2d 342, 525 P.2d 761 (1974); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 519 P.2d 288 (1974); to control photography in court, See Ex parte Sturm, 152 Md. 114, 136 A. 312 (1927); to honor letters rogatory, See Ex par......
-
Utah State Bar Petition for Approval of Changes in Disciplinary Rules on Advertising, In re, 18024
... ... Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 559-60, 133 P.2d 325, 330, 144 A.L.R ... Page 993 ... 839 (1943). Accord, Berberian v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 114 R.I. 197, 330 A.2d 813 (1975); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 519 P.2d 288, 290 (1974); In re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Association, 133 Neb. 283, 275 N.W. 265, 114 A.L.R. 151 (1937); In re Opinion of the Justices, 279 Mass. 607, 180 N.E. 725, 81 A.L.R. 1059 (1932). In this instance, we exercise our rule-making powers, rather than our ... ...