N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-314

As amended through November 1, 2024

Rule 17-314 - Consideration by the Disciplinary Board

A.Appointment of hearing panel. Upon receipt of the findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing committee, the chair of the Disciplinary Board shall appoint one or more members of the board to serve as a hearing panel, with one member designated as chair.

B.Submission of briefs and requests for oral argument. Requests for oral argument and submission of briefs shall be made as provided in Paragraph E of Rule 17-313 NMRA and shall state with specificity the issues to be addressed in the proposed argument or brief.

C.No additional evidence before the board. The Disciplinary Board panel shall consider only evidence in the record of the hearing committee. No additional evidence will be admitted at the hearing before the board panel. If the board panel determines that there are conflicting factual findings by the hearing committee, the board panel may remand a matter to the hearing committee for clarification of the committee's factual findings. The board panel will specifically identify the conflicting findings and state what clarification is sought from the hearing committee upon remand.

D.Oral argument. When oral argument is allowed, the party requesting the oral argument shall proceed first, but may reserve a portion of the allotted time for rebuttal. The amount of time for oral argument may be determined by the board panel.

E.Proceedings on remand from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court remands a matter to the Disciplinary Board for evidentiary proceedings pursuant to Paragraph G of Rule 17-206 NMRA, Paragraph B of Rule 17-207 NMRA, or Paragraph B of Rule 17-208 NMRA, the chair shall assign the case to a panel of one or more members of the Disciplinary Board and shall appoint a member of the panel to chair the panel. The panel shall hold a hearing within thirty (30) days of the assignment. Upon a showing of good cause, the chair of the Disciplinary Board may grant an extension of time within which the hearing may be held. The panel shall follow the procedures set forth in Rule 17-313 NMRA as if the panel were a hearing committee, except that the panel shall forward the record of the proceedings and its findings and recommendations directly to the Supreme Court.

N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-314

As amended, effective 1/1/1986;1/1/1987;5/16/1994;1/1/1995; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-001, effective 1/16/2008; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-045, effective 12/31/2013.

ANNOTATIONS The 2013 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-045, effective December 31, 2013, provided for the remand of a matter to the hearing committee for a clarification of the committee's finding when there are conflicting findings; in Subparagraph C, in the second sentence, at the end of the sentence, added "panel", added the third and fourth sentences; in Paragraph D, in the second sentence, after "may be determined by the", added "board"; and in Paragraph E, in the first sentence, after "Rule 17-206 NMRA, added "Paragraph B of Rule 17-207 NMRA". The 2008 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-001, effective January 16, 2008, rewrote Paragraph B. The 1995 amendment, effective January 1, 1995, added Paragraph E. The 1994 amendment, effective May 16, 1994, divided former Paragraph A to form Paragraphs A and B and rewrote those paragraphs, redesignated former Paragraphs B and C as Paragraphs C and D, inserted "panel" and substituted "evidence in the record" for "evidence present in the record" in Paragraph C, and substituted "panel" for "Disciplinary Board" in Paragraph D. Constitutional claims. - The Disciplinary Board has jurisdiction over a petition for a declaratory judgment on constitutional claims and should use the procedures outlined in Paragraph A of this rule to govern the proceedings. Stein v. Legal Advertising Com., 272 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 2004). New evidence not admissible at oral argument. - When, during oral argument, an attorney attempted to introduce additional evidence to show that he had taken remedial steps to address some of the deficiencies noted by the committee in its report, the board panel correctly refused to admit the additional evidence. Argument before the board panel is not meant to constitute a trial de novo. In re Quintana, 1991-NMSC-055, 112 N.M. 132, 812 P.2d 786. Standard of review. - When reviewing the findings of a hearing committee, the hearing panel should defer to the hearing committee on matters of weight and credibility, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the hearing committee's decision and resolving all conflicts and reasonable inferences in favor of the decision reached by the hearing committee. In re Bristol, 2006-NMSC-041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905. The hearing panel is not bound by the hearing committee's legal conclusions or recommendations for discipline and reviews such matters under a de novo standard of review. In re Bristol, 2006-NMSC-041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys at Law §§ 94, 95, 97. 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client §§ 99 to 112.