N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-303
No statute of limitation or other time limitation restricts filing a complaint or bringing a proceeding under these rules, but the passage of time since an act of misconduct occurred may be considered in determining what, if any, action or sanction is warranted.
N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-303
ANNOTATIONS The 2013 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-045, effective December 31, 2013, eliminated a set limitation period; deleted the former language of the rule that provided for a four-year limitation period and added the current language of the rule. The 1994 amendment, effective February 1, 1994, added "Except in cases involving theft or misappropriation, conviction of a crime, or a knowing act of concealment," at the beginning of the rule and substituted "four (4) years" for "three (3) years" near the end of the rule. Abolishment of period of limitations. - Where respondent was alleged to have committed professional misconduct on or about May 22, 2011 and where the disciplinary board filed a complaint and amended complaint on April 20, 2015 and September 9, 2015, respectively, the disciplinary charges against respondent were not barred by the four-year limitations period set forth in the 1994 version of Rule 17-303 NMRA, because the 2013 amendment to Rule 17-303 eliminated the limitations period, and although the abolishment or extension of a limitations period cannot revive a previously time-barred prosecution, it can extend an unexpired limitation period, because such extension does not impair vested rights acquired under prior law, require new obligations, impose new duties, or affix new disabilities to past transactions. In re Venie, 2017-NMSC-018. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys at Law § 89. 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 63.