U.S. v. Martinez, 15411
| Decision Date | 21 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 15411,15411 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donaldo A. MARTINEZ and Lawrence A. Tapia, Defendants. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This case was certified to this Court by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The issue before us is whether the pro se appearance as a party defendant of the Honorable Donaldo A. Martinez, District Judge of the New Mexico Fourth Judicial District, in a lawsuit pending before the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico constitutes the practice of law in violation of NMSA 1978, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5(F) (Repl.Pamp.1983). We hold that it does not.
Canon 5(F) provides that "[a] judge should not practice law." The Supreme Court of New Mexico has the exclusive right to regulate the practice of law. State Bar v. Guardian Abstract & Title Co., 91 N.M. 434, 575 P.2d 943 (1978); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 519 P.2d 288 (1974). This Court has never fully defined what constitutes the practice of law. Each case is determined in light of its own facts. Sparkman v. State Board of Bar Examiners, 77 N.M. 551, 425 P.2d 313 (1967). The practice of law is usually interpreted to entail the representation of others. See 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law, Sec. 101 (1980). The illegal practice of law generally is found when "a layman, as part of his regular course of conduct, resolves legal questions for another * * * * " Guardian Abstract, 91 N.M. at 439, 575 P.2d at 948. In State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 85 N.M. 521, 526, 514 P.2d 40, 45 (1973), this Court stated that, inter alia, "representation of parties before judicial or administrative bodies," or "giving legal advice and counsel" would constitute the practice of law. Representing one's self in a legal proceeding does not constitute practicing law. See State ex rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 124 P.2d 768 (1942). In the case of Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc., 137 Ariz. 53, 668 P.2d 896 (App.1983), the court held that lawyers representing themselves in a property action were not entitled to attorney fees since, by representing themselves, they were not practicing law. The court said, "Even though the buyers in this case were themselves all attorneys, and carried out tasks ordinarily performed by lawyers their activities did not constitute the practice of law because they represented themselves." Id. at 56, 668 P.2d at 899.
In addition, self-representation by a judge in a proceeding against him in another court is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1997 -NMCA- 112, Chisholm v. Rueckhaus
...child, "pro se." Representing one's self in a legal proceeding does not constitute "the practice of law." United States v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 423, 423, 684 P.2d 509, 509 (1984). Representing another, however, does. Id. ("The practice of law is usually interpreted to entail the representatio......
-
Schlieter v. Carlos
...answer to novel questions of New Mexico law would be "determinative" in this narrow sense. For example, in United States v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 423, 684 P.2d 509 (1984), we held that a New Mexico judge could represent himself in civil proceedings without engaging in the practice of law as pr......
-
Lee v. Catron
...case law is clear that "[t]he practice of law is usually interpreted to entail the representation of others." United States v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 423, 423, 684 P.2d 509, 509 (1984). The representation of parties before judicial or administrative bodies constitutes the practice of law. State......
-
State v. Wolf, A-1-CA-36779
...practice of law is usually interpreted to entail the representation of others." United States v. Martinez, 1984-NMSC-072, ¶ 2, 101 N.M. 423, 684 P.2d 509. In addition, Defendant does not dispute the law relied upon in this Court's calendar notice. [CN 3] See NMSA 1978, § 36-2-27 (1999) (pro......