State Ex Rel.Bd. of Com'rs of State Bar v. Kiker

• Decision Date: 01 November 1927
• Docket Number: No. 3301.,3301.
• Parties: STATE ex rel.BOARD OF COM'RS OF STATE BARv.KIKER, District Judge, et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

33 N.M. 6

261 P. 816

STATE ex rel.BOARD OF COM'RS OF STATE BAR

v.KIKER, District Judge, et al.

No. 3301.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 1, 1927.

Syllabus by the Court.

The district court of the First judicial district has power to issue, hear, and determine a writ of certiorari, directed to the board of commissioners of the state bar, and inquire into its jurisdiction to suspend an attorney from practice.

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of the Board of Commissioners of the State Bar, for prohibition to be directed to H. A. Kiker, District Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, sitting as Judge of the First Judicial District, within and for the county of Santa Fé, and others. Alternative writ of prohibition discharged.

The district court of the First judicial district has power to issue, hear, and determine a writ of certiorari, directed to the board of commissioners of the state bar, and inquire into its jurisdiction to suspend an attorney from practice.

C. C. Catron and E. R. Wright, both of Santa Fé, for relator.

R. C. Dow, Atty. Gen., for respondent Kiker.Fred E. Wilson, of Albuquerque, for respondent Hannett.

PARKER, C. J.

Judge Reed Holloman, judge of the First judicial district, being disqualified to hear an application for a writ of certiorari, Judge H. A. Kiker was designated by the Chief Justice to hear and determine the same. Judge Kiker proceeded to hear the application for the writ, awarded the same, and was proceeding to hear and determine the matter, when the relator applied to this court for a writ of prohibition, directed to said judge in court, seeking to prohibit him from proceeding to a determination of the case. On account of the importance of the question, an alternative writ of prohibition was issued by this court, and return thereto has been made, and the matter has been argued and submitted.

1. It is argued in behalf of the relator that the district courts have no jurisdiction over the judgments which it may render in disciplining an attorney. The relator had suspended, after hearing, a member of the bar of this court from practice for a period of one year, under the provisions of chapter 100, Laws 1925. The question turns upon the proper interpretation of section 13, art. 6, of the state Constitution, which is as follows:

“The district court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters and causes not excepted in this Constitution, and such jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings as may be conferred by law, and appellate jurisdiction of all cases originating in inferior courts and tribunals in their respective districts, and supervisory control over the same. The district courts, or any judge thereof, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and all other writs, remedial or otherwise in the exercise of their jurisdiction: Provided, that no such writs shall issue directed to judges or courts of equal or superior jurisdiction. * * *”

It is to be observed that the district courts by this section are granted original jurisdiction in all cases not excepted in the Constitution, and such jurisdiction in special proceedings as may be conferred by law. Thus far the jurisdiction conferred is entirely original jurisdiction. Then follows the grant of appellate jurisdiction over all inferior courts and tribunals in their respective districts. It may be this latter grant of jurisdiction is not self-executing, and can be exercised only when the procedure therefor has been provided by law or the rules of this court, as is now authorized by law. But this is immaterial in this case, for the reason that the jurisdiction here sought to be exercised is not appellate jurisdiction. The district court, in issuing a writ of certiorari, was not attempting to review on the merits the action of relators in suspending the attorney from practice, but was simply inquiring whether the relator had power and...