N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-214
The Judicial Standards Commission shall review and evaluate reports of such misconduct to determine if the report warrants further review or investigation.
N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-214
Committee commentary. -
[1] "Appropriate action" means action intended and reasonably likely to help the judge or lawyer in question address the problem and prevent harm to the justice system or the public at large. Depending upon the circumstances, appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, speaking directly to the impaired person, notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over the impaired person, or making a referral to an assistance program.
[2] Taking or initiating corrective action by way of referral to an assistance program may satisfy a judge's responsibility under this rule. Assistance programs have many approaches for offering help to impaired judges and lawyers, such as intervention, counseling, or referral to appropriate health care professionals. Depending on the gravity of the conduct that has come to the judge's attention, however, the judge may be required to take other action, such as reporting the impaired judge or lawyer to the appropriate authority, agency, or body. See Rule 21-215 NMRA.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective January 1, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, the former Judicial Code of Conduct was recompiled, effective January 1, 2012. See the table of corresponding rules for former rule numbers and the corresponding new rule numbers. JUDICIAL REPRIMANDS Drug abuse. - Where a judge knowingly evaded the service of an order of the Judicial Standards Commission to submit to drug testing; the judge did not appear for drug testing for more than seventy-two hours after the judge learned of the commission's order, refused to submit to the collection of a sample, and ordered the judge's own tests to obtain results that would be available only to the judge; and when the judge finally submitted to the drug testing as ordered by the commission, the judge tested positive for cocaine, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Garza, 2007-NMSC-028, 141 N.M. 831, 161 P.3d 876 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Alcoholism. - Where a judge recessed a criminal jury trial for a long holiday weekend; the judge did not return to court on the date set for the completion of the trial; the judge told an administrative assistant that the judge was ill, but would be in court in the afternoon; the judge did not return that day and the judge's staff rescheduled the trial for two days later; on the day the trial was to resume, the judge told the assistant that the judge was hospitalized for heart-related tests; after the trial was twice reset due to the judge's unavailability, a stipulated mistrial order was entered; the judge was absent for two weeks during which the judge was hospitalized for six days; the judge's heart ailment and the hospitalization were due to alcohol withdrawal; and to justify the judge's absence, the judge told a reporter that the judge was being treated for and was recovering from a mild heart attack, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Pope, S.Ct. No. 29,778 (Filed June 13, 2007) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation).