1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: F eb ru ar y 11 , 201 6 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5460 5 IN TH E MATTE R OF 6 ARMANDO TORRES, ES QUI RE 7 A n A tt or ne y L ic en se d to 8 Pr actice B efore the Cour ts 9 of the State of N ew Mexico
10 OPI NIO N AND P UBLI C CENSURE
11 Jane G ag ne 12 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 13 for D isciplin ary

Board
14 Ar m ando Torre s 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 Re spon de nt18 W e assum e that the m edical records and m edical bills w ere in files obtained 1 19 fr om T or re s be ca use the dis ci pli nary

c ost bi ll doe s no t se ek r ei m bur se m en t f

or 20 obtaini ng records from the various m edical providers who trea ted Ms. G arcia
. 1 OPI NIO N AND P UBLI C CENSURE 2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} This opinio n and pub lic censure concer ns an attorney

whose neglect re sulted 4 in the dis m iss al of his c lie nt’ s pe rs ona l i nj ur y c as e fo r fa ilure to pr ose cu te a nd the 5 attor ne y ’ s su bse que nt e ff

orts t o m ak e his c lie nt w hol e thr oughde ce pti on. D ur ing the 6 dis ci pli nary

pr oc ee din gs i t w as a lso dis co ve re d th at the a tto rney

vio la te d R

ule 16- 7 104( C) NMRAby

failing to not ify

his client that his liabilityinsurance had lapsed 8 during h is representation of her. 9 { 2} A rm an do T or

re s ha s pr ac tic ed

lawsin ce O ct obe r 1977
. T he va st m aj or ity of 10 his pr ac tic e has be en in c ri m ina l de fe nse w ork un de r co ntr ac t w iththe L awO ff ic e of 11 the P ubl ic D ef

en de r. S om e tim e ar ound January 200 9, T or

re s w as hir ed

by A nni e 12 Garcia to pursue a personal inj ury case a gainst W al-Mar t as a re sult of injuries that 13 she suffere d on D ecem ber 18, 2008
. Torr es did not file a lawsuit against W al-Mar t 14 until January 30, 2011
. The scant record before us does not reveal w hat, if any , w ork 15 Torr es did on th e case either prior to or af ter filing the l aw s u i t . We presum e that 16 Torr es obtained Ms. Garcia’ s m edical re cords and m edical bills because discipli nary 17 co unse l f

ile d asum

m ar y of the m ed ic al r ec or ds and m ed ic al bil ls. 12

1 { 3} A cc or din g to the sum m ar y Ms
. G ar ci a sus ta ine d a he m at om a to the he ad , 2 w ith out

ac onc uss ion ; br

uis ing to the kne e an d pelv is, w ith out fr ac tur es ; and the los s 3 of atoo th f ro m he r de nture s w he n abox f el l of f a she lf , kno ck ing he r to the gr ound
. 4 T he m ed ic al bil ls w er e sum m ar iz ed a s f oll ow s: 5 A m

bul an ce $ 650. 56 6 W al ke r atta ch m en ts 29. 33 7 L ove la ce c harg es 6, 897. 00 8 D en tur e re pla ce m en t 650. 00 9 V ar iou s do ct or vis its 2, 218. 00 10 T O T A L : $10, 804. 63 11 { 4} W e do not kn oww he the r thi s m ed ic al inf orm at ionw as e ve r co nve y ed to W al

12 Mart or if

W al-Mar t wa s even awa re of the lawsuit. I n any event, the law suit was 13 dis m iss ed

f or f ai lur e to p ro se cu te on M ay 28, 20 13
. Des pit e the dis m iss al , in June 1 4 201 4 T o rr e s a d v i s e d M s . G a r c i a t h r o u g h h e r d au g h t e r , L i n d a M a r qu e z , w ho h ada 15 pow er of a tto rn ey to ac t f or Ms
. G ar ci a, that he was negot ia tin g ase ttl em en t of the 16 ca se w ithW al -M ar

t f or $70, 000. T or

re s w as advis ed

to co nti nue the ne got ia tio ns and 17 se ek $12 0, 000 if

it w as pos sib le ; othe rw ise he w as auth or iz ed to ac ce pt $ 70, 000. 18 { 5} Ms
. G ar ci a fi le d ac om pla int a ga ins t T or

res in A ugus t 20 14 w iththe 19 D isc ipl inary

Bo ar d, a lle gin g th at

T or re s w as not

c om m uni catin g w ith the m

about the 20 sta tus of

the ir c as e. T or

re s re spon de d to the c om pla int on S ep te m

be r 3, 201 4 by 21 advis ing the D isc ipl inary Bo ar d th at

he ha d f ina liz ed a se ttl em en t f

or Ms
. G ar ci a w ith20 T or

re s te sti fi ed

that the f ee a gr ee m en t w ithMs
. G ar ci a was for one -thir d of 2 21 an y r ec ove ry plu s gros s re ce ipt s tax. U nde r suc h a stru ct ur e Ms
. G ar ci a w oul d have 22 re ce ive d le ss than $5 0, 000 fr om a$70 , 000 se ttl em en t. 3 1 W al-Mar

t, but that he had not been in con t ac t wi t h h i s client due to person al 2 ci rc um stanc es . I nde ed , on S ep te m be r 10, 201 4, T or

re s ha d M s. G ar ci a sig n ar el ea se 3 ost en sib ly

se ttl ing he r law sui t w ithW al -M ar t f or $70 , 000. T or

re s gave Ms
. G ar ci a 4 $50, 000 f

ro m his pe rs ona l r et ir em en t f unds , not f ro m the non -exi ste nt s ettle m en t 2 5 with W al-Mar

t. Torres felt re m orse for w hat he described as “ abberant [sic] 6 be ha vio r, ” but

he did not “ have the c our ag e” to te ll ei the r Ms
. G ar ci a or the 7 D isc ipl inary

Bo ar d th at

he r ca se ha d be en dis m iss ed , so he se t out t o atte m pt t o m ak e 8 he r w hol e by

f ab ri catin g ase ttl em en t w ithW al -M ar t. 9 { 6} Disciplinary counsel m et with Torr es after they becam e aw are of the actual 10 fa ct s of

the c as e. T orres ex pr esse d ge nui ne r em or se a nd a gr ee d to e nte r int o a 11 conditi onal agreem ent adm itting the al l eg at i ons and con senting to discipl ine. I n 12 additio n to adm itting the fac ts described above, T orres adm itted in th e agre em ent that 13 he ha d vi ola te d th e fo llo w ing Ru le s of P ro fe ssi ona l C ondu ct : 14 1. Ru le 16- 101 [N MR A ] , by f ai lin g to pr ovi de com pe te nt 15 re pr es en ta tio n to ac lie nt; 16 1 7 2
. R

u l e 1 6
- 1 0 3 [ N M RA ], b y f

a i l i n g t o r e p r e s e n th i s c l i e n td i l i g e n t l y; 18 19 3. Ru le 16- 104 [N MR A , ] by f ai lin g to c om

m uni cate w ithhis c lie nt4

1 and by

m aking false statem ents to his client about the status of her 2 case; 3 4 4. Ru le 16- 302 [N MR A ] , by f ai lin g to e xpe dit e lit iga tio n; 5 6 5. Ru le 16- 801( A ) [ N MR A ] , by kno w ing ly

m ak ing af

al se state m en t 7 of

m at er ia l f

ac t i n c onne ct ionw ithadis ci pli nary m atte r; a nd 8 9 6. Ru le 16- 804( C) [ N MR A ] , by e nga gin g inc ondu ct

involving 10 dis hone sty , f ra ud, de ce it or

m isr ep re se nta tio n. 11 { 7} T or

re s a lso a gr ee d th at

his dis ci pli ne shou ld b e a one -y ear sus pe nsi on f ro m the 12 practice of lawpursuant to Rule 17-206 (A )(3) N MRA , def erre d on th e condition that 13 he pay

the c ost s of

the se pr oc ee din gs and o the rw ise c om ply w iththe Ru le s of 14 Pr of es sio na l C ondu ct , a nd tha t he r ec ei ve a pu bl ic c en sur e pur suant t o R ule 17- 15 206(A) (4 ). B oththe he ar ing c om m itt ee a nd the D isc ipl inary Bo ar d ul tim at el y 16 re co m m en de d th at

thi s Court ac ce pt the ag re em en t. A ft er c onsi de ri ng the r ec or d in 17 thi s c as e an d th e arg um en ts b ef or e the Co urt, w e unanim ousl y a gr ee d to a dopt

the 18 Disciplinary

Board’ s finding s of fac t, c onc l u s i o n s of law , and recom m ended 19 discipli ne. 20 { 8} Although Torr es’ s intentio nal deception is troubleso m e, we are persuaded that 21 the dis ci pli ne that ha s be ena gr ee d to a nd r ec om m en de d by

the D isc ipl inary

Bo ar d is 22 suf fi ci en t fo r the fu tur e pr ote ct ion of the pu bl ic
. Se e In re Ne undo rf , 23 1989 -N MS C- 052, ¶

7, 108 N
. M. 653 , 777 P
. 2d 3 81 ( attor ne y dis ci pli ne “ m

ust r es t5

1 sol el y upo n th e ste ps n ec es sary to in su re the f

uture pr ote ct ionof

the pub lic , the 2 re p u t at i o n o f t h e p ro f

e s s i o n , a n dt h e o rd er l y ad m i n i s t ra t i o n o f ju s t i ce ”) . To rr es ’s 3 neglect of his client was an isolated incidence of negligence and l ac k of diligence 4 whi ch ord in ari ly w o u l d warra nt an ad m on it io n. Se e A B A Sta ndards f

or I m posi ng 5 La wy er San ct ion s § 4. 43 (1 991)
. T or re s ha s no t ha d any

pr ior dis ci pli nary

c om pla int s 6 fil edag ai ns t h im , whi ch is a si g n i f i c a n t m it ig at in g fa ct or . A B A Sta ndards f

or 7 Im posi ng L aw

ye r Sa nc tio ns § 9.32(a) ( 1991 ). 8 { 9} W e ar e al so per sua de d that T or re s’ s e ff orts t o m ak e his c lie nt whol e by pay ing 9 her slightlym ore than what she would have rece ived had the settlem ent actually been 10 w ithW al -M ar

t f or $7 0, 000 w ar

rants le ss than an ou tr igh t su spe nsi on f ro m the 11 practice of lawfor his intentional m isrepresentations to h is client and the Disciplinary 1 2 Bo a r d
. Wh e t h e r t h e c l i e n t h a s a c tu a l l y b e e n m a d e w h o l e i s n o t a n i ssu e fo r us t o 13 decide, and in any event, we cannot decide t he issue on the record bef ore us. Much 14 de pends on the unde rl y ing m er its of Ms
. G ar ci a’ s ca se ag ai nst W al -M ar t. A s we 15 sta te d in Enc in ia s v. Whi te ne r La w Fir m, P.A

. , 201 3- N MS C- 045, ¶ 8, 310 P
. 3d 6 11: 16 U nde r N ewMe xic o law , the pla in ti ff in a le ga l m al pr ac tic e sui t m ust 17 prove this loss by dem onstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 18 he or s he wou ld ha ve pr ev ai le d on th e u nd erl y in g c la im
. Richardson v. 19 G las s , 1992-NMS C-046, ¶ 10, 114 N. M. 119, 835 P. 2d 83 5 (“ Plaintiff 20 ha d th e bur de n of not onl y pr ovi ng h er co un se l’ s ne gli ge nc e, but a lso 21 that she would have recov er ed at trial in the underly ing action.”);6

1 G eo rge v . Ca ton , 197 9- N MC A -028, ¶ ¶ 46- 47, 93 N
. M. 370 , 600 P
. 2d 2 822 (“ Ina m al pr ac tic e ac tio n . . . the m ea sur e of da m ag es is the va lue of 3 the los t c la im s, i. e. , the a m ount that w oul d have be en re co ve re d by the 4 client except for the a ttorney ’ s negligence.”). 5 (Om is si on in ori gi na l.) 6 { 10} Inthi s c as e, T orres di d not se ek ar el ea se of

his pot en tia l l ia

bil ity f ro m Ms
. 7 Garcia, and therefore Ms. G arcia m ay n o t b e barr ed from pursuin g a law y er 8 ne gli ge nc e cl ai m ag ai nst T or re s. In de ed , ha d Tor

re s sought to s ettle w ithMs
. G ar ci a 9 fo r hi s m al pr act ic e, he wou l d h av e h adto co m pl y wit h R ul e 1 6- 10 8( H) NMRA, 10 w hic h pr ovi de s: 11 H. Pr ospective m alpractice liability lim itation. Alaw y er 12 sha ll not : 13 (1 ) m ak e ana gr ee m en t pr ospe ct ive ly li m iti ng the 14 law y er ’ s li ab ili ty to a cl ie nt f

or m al pr ac tic e unl ess the c lie nt i s 15 ind ep en de ntl y

r ep re se nte d inm ak ing the a gr ee m en t; or 16 (2 ) se tt le a cl ai m or p ot en ti al cla im

forsu ch liab ili ty

w ith 17 anunr ep re se nte d c lie nt o r fo rm er c lie nt unle ss tha t pe rs on is a dvi se d in 18 w ri tin g of

the de sir ab ili ty

of se ek ing a nd i s gi ven ar ea sona ble 19 oppo rt

uni ty to se ek the a dvi ce of

ind ep ende nt l eg al c ouns el in 20 co nne ct ionthe re w ith
. 21 { 11} How ever, th e m ethod Torres c hose to resolv e the dispute was deceptive. 22 Torr es shoul d have advised Ms. Garcia in w riting that her case had been dism issed 23 an d th at

she sho uld

se ek ind ep en de nt co unse l re gard ing a pot en tia l m al pr ac tic e cl ai m7

1 ag ai nst him
. O rd inari ly

the a tto rn ey

f ac ed w ithapot en tia l m al pr ac tic e cl ai m w oul d 2 not if y his ins ur an ce c ar

ri er . H ow ev er , in thi s c as e T or re s te sti fie d th at th e 3 m al pr ac tic e ins ur an ce he ha d at the tim e he w as em plo y ed by Ms
. G ar ci a ha d la pse d, 4 y et he did not

not if y Ms
. G ar ci a tha t he w as no l onge r ins ur ed , a s r equir ed by Ru le 5 16- 104( C)
. W e t a k e t h i s o p p o rtu n i t y t o qu o t e R u l e 1 6
- 1 0 4 ( C ) i n i t s e n t i r e tyto 6 em pha siz e tha t this dis cl osur e re qui re m en t is m an da tor y a nd w ill sub

j ec t a tto rn ey s to 7 discipli ne for non-com pliance. 8 C
. Disclosure of profe ssional li ability insurance. 9 (1) If, at t he tim e of the client’ s form al engagem ent of a 10 lawy er, the law y er does not have a professional liabilit y insuranc e policy 11 with lim its of at least one-hundred tho usan d d o l l ars ($10 0,000) per 12 claim

and three-hundred thous and doll ars ($300,000) in the a ggregate, 13 the lawy er shall inform the client in writing using the form o f no tice 14 prescribed by

this rule. I f during the course of rep re s en t ation, an 15 ins ur an ce pol ic y in ef fe ct at the tim e of the cl ie nt’ s en ga ge m en t o f the 16 law y er

la pse s, or is te rm ina te d, the law y er sha ll pr ovi de notic e to the 17 client using the form prescribed by

this rule. 18 (2) The f orm of notice and ack n owledgm ent required 19 under this Paragraph shall be: 20 NOTICE TO CLIENT 21 Purs uant to Rul e 16- 104( C) N MR A of the N ewMe xic o R

ule s of 22 Pr of

es sio na l C ondu ct , I a m

r equir ed to not if y y ou tha t [ “ I” or

“ thi s 23 Fi rm ”] [d o no t] [d oe s no t] [n o lo nge r] m ai nta in[ s] pr of es sio na l l ia

bil ity 24 m al p ractice insurance of at lea st one-hun dred thous and doll ars 25 ($100,000) per occurrence and three-hundred th o u s and doll ars8

1 ($300,000) in th e aggregate. 2

____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 3 Attorney ’ s sign ature 4 CLIENT ACKNOW LEDGMENT 5 I ac knowledge receipt of the no tice re quired by Rule 16-104(C) 6 NMR

A of the NewMexico Rules o f Profe ssion al Conduct that [insert 7 attor

ne y or f irm ’ s nam e] doe s no t m ai nt ain pr of es sio na l l ia

bil ity 8 m a l pr a c t i c e i ns ur a nc e o f a tl e a st o ne - hundr e d t ho us a nd d ol l ars 9 ($100,000) per occurrence and three-hundred thous and do l l ars 10 ($300,000) in th e aggregate. 11

____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 12 Client’ s sign ature 1 3 (3 ) As used in this Paragraph, “ lawy er ” i n cl u d es a lawy er 14 pr ovi sio na lly

a dm itt ed und er Ru le 24- 106 NMR

A a nd R ule s 26 -1 01 15 thr ough26- 106 N MR A ; ho w ev er

it doe s not incl ude a la w y er w ho i s a 1 6 f

u l l

- t i me j u d g e , i n - h o u s e c o r p o r a t e c o u n s e l f

o r as i n g l e c o r

p o r a t e e n t i t y, 17 or a law y er w ho practices exclusively as an em ploy ee of a

governm ental 1 8 a g e n c y. 19 (4) A lawy er shall m aintain a rec ord of the disclosu res 20 m ad e pur suant t o th is r ule f or six ( 6) y ears a ft er

te rm ina tio n of

the 21 represe ntation of the client by the law y er. 22 (5 ) T he m ini m um li m its of in sur an ce spe ci fi ed by thi s 23 ru le inc lud e an y de duc tib le or se lf -i nsur ed re te nti on, w hic h m ust be pa id 24 as apr ec ondi tio n to the paym en t of the c ove ra ge a va ila

ble u nd er the 2 5 p r o f

e s s i o n a l l i ab i l i t y i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y. 26 (6 ) A law y er is in vio la tio n of thi s ru le if the law y er

or 27 the firm

em ploy i ng the lawy er m aintain a professional liabili ty policy 28 with a deductible or self-insured re tention that the lawy er knows or has9

1 re as on t o kn owc annot be pa id by the law y er or the law y er ’ s fi rm in the 2 ev en t of

alos s. 3 Id

. 4 { 12} D ur ing or al a rg um en t, dis ci pli nary c ouns el c ont en de d th at thi s c as e is 5 co m para ble to Ne un dorf

a nd j ust if

ie s apub lic c en sur e. W e ag re e. I n Ne undo rf , 6 attor ne y Joh n N eundor f al low ed

the statut e of

li m itatio ns to r

un o n ac lie nt’ s c la im 7 by f ili ng the la wsuit on e day la te . 198 9- N MS C- 052, ¶ 3. N eundor f w ro te to the 8 ins ur an ce a dj ust er

on the ca se , e nc los ing a n un co nf irm ed c opy of the c om pla int a nd 9 represe nting that it had been tim ely filed. When the adjuster asked for a c onfirm ed 10 copy , N eundorf used a copy m achine t o superim pose a filin g stam

p from an unrelated 11 co m pla int that w oul d have sho w n th at the c om pla int w as f ile d w ith in the statut e of 12 li m it at io ns . Id

. N eundor f al so show ed a co py of the al te re d co m pla int to his c lie nt 13 to ass ur e h er t ha t i t was t im el y fil ed
. Id

. N eundor f the n m ad e a se ttl em en t of fe r to 14 the ins ur an ce c om

pany , a nd a ft er the ins ur an ce co m pany m ad e a co unt er of

fe r fo r ha lf 15 of the dem and, he urged his client to acc ept the counteroffer, even offer ing to lower 16 hi s fe e to en ti ce h is cli en t t o a ccep t. Id

. ¶ 4. T he c lie nt b ec am e co nc er ne d a bout the 17 cas e, an d sh e ret rie ve d a co py of th e co m pl ai nt fro m

th e d is tri ctco ur t. Id

. Whe n sh e 18 di sc ov ered th atth e co m pl ai nt ha d be en fil ed la te , sh e co ns ul te d a no th er at to rn ey . Id

. 19 ¶¶ 4- 5. T he ne wa tto rn ey

a nd the a tto rn ey

f or the ins ur an ce c om

pany noti fi ed

the10

1 D isc ipl inary

Bo ar d of

N eundor f’ s a ct ion s, a nd the D isc ipl inary Bo ar d br ough t 2 di sc ip li na ry

pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im
. Id

. T he he ar ing c om

m itt ee f ound that ha d th e 3 cl ie nt n ot d isc ove re d th e al te ratio n and b rought it to an oth er

a tto rn ey ’ s a tte nti on, 4 Neu nd or f wou ld ha ve co nt in ue d hi s frau du le nt effo rts to se tt le th e cl ai m . Id

. ¶ 5. T he 5 he ar ing c om

m itt ee a lso f

ound tha t had the ne got ia tio ns r es ult ed in a se ttl em en t, the 6 al te ratio n w oul d no t have be endis co vered an d N eundor f w oul d no t have 7 ack no wled ge d a ny wron gd oi ng . Id

. T he he ar ing c om

m itt ee r ec om

m en de d th at he be 8 susp ended from

the practice of lawfor six m onth s and placed on pr o b at i o n for an 9 ad di ti on al si x m on th s as di sc ip li ne . Id

. ¶ 6. 10 { 13} A ft er

or al a rg um en t, aD isc ipl inary Bo ar d panel ad op te d all of the he ar ing 11 com m ittee’ s finding s and conclusi ons, but recom m ended that Neundorf rec eive a 12 pu bl ic cen su re an d be pl aced on co nd it io na l pr ob at io n fo r a p eri od of o ne y ear. Id

. 13 T he Bo ar d no te d th at

N eundor f m ad e a subs tanti al e ff ort t o re im

bur se his c lie nt f

or 14 he r los se s by

a gr ee ing to pay

he r $35, 000 ove r a per iod of tw o y ears , a nd h ad a lr ea dy 15 pa id $1 4,5 00 to ward th at de bt
. Id

. The Bo ard al so fo un d th at Neu nd or f ha d s ho wn 16 ho ne st rem or se , and th ere was no da ng er t ha t hi s m is co nduc t wou ld be rep eat ed
. Id

. 17 { 14} Bo th N eundor f an d T or re s w er e ex pe ri en ce d a tto rn ey s w ho h ad not pr ev iou sly 18 had discipl inary

com plaints filed agains t them
. They each e ngaged in an is olated11

1 incident of attorney

negligence, and ultim ately attem pted to m ake their clients w hole. 2 B o t ha t t o rn e ys d e mo n s t r a t e ds i n c e r e r e mo r s e f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s . Wh e r e b o t h a t t o rn e ys 3 failed m iserably is in their efforts to rem edy their negligence by

deception. W e ar e 4 pe rs ua de d by

the r ec or d inthi s c as e that a one -y ear de fe rr ed sus pe nsi on w iththi s 5 publ ic censure is adequate to protect the public. T herefor e, attorney Ar m ando Torre s 6 is h er eb y

sus pe nde d f

ro m th e pr ac tic e of

lawunt il D ec em

be r 2, 201 6, w iththe 7 susp ension d efer

red subjec t to the conditi ons expressed in our order dated D ecem ber 8 2, 2015
. T his opi nio n sha ll se rv e as T or re s’ s pu bli c ce nsur e, a nd h e sha ll pay c ost s 9 in the am ount of $415.27 to th e D isciplin ary Board consistent with our order. 10 { 15} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

11 __ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 12 ED WAR D L . C HÁV EZ , Just ice 13 WE CONCUR:

14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 15 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, C hief Just ice

16 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice