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

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: F eb ru ar y 6, 201 7 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5469 5 IN TH E MATTE R OF EMIL IO JACOB CHAVEZ , ESQUI RE 6 An At torney L icensed to P ractice Law Bef ore th e C ourts 7 of the State of N ew Mexico 8 Consolidated With: 9 IN TH E MATTE R OF DONALD A. GALLEG OS, ES QUI RE 10 An At torney L icensed to P ractice Law Bef ore th e C ourts 11 of the State of N ew Mexico

12 W illiam

D. Slease, Chief D isciplin ary Counsel 13 Christine E. Long, A ssistant Disciplinary Counsel 14 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 15 for D isciplin ary

Board

16 W illiam

Riordan & A ssociates 17 W illiam

Riordan 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 for Re spon dent Em ilio Jacob Chavez

20 Ahm ad Assed & A ssociates 21 Ahm ad Assed 22 Richard J. Moran 23 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM1 fo r Re spon de nt D ona ld A

. G al le gos1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 { 1} T his dis ci pli na ry a ct ion inv olv es Re spon de nts E m ili o Ja co b Ch av ez , D ep uty 4 Dis tri ctAtt or ne y

forth e Eig ht h J ud ic ia l Di st ric t, an d h is su pe rv is orDon al d A. 5 Gall eg os , Dis tri ctAtt or n e y f o r th e Eig ht h J ud ic ia l Di st ric t. Ov er t he co ur se of t wo 6 y ears, Chavez engaged in a pattern of issuing investig ative subpo enas unconn ected 7 to c ourt or

gr an d j ur y pr oc ee din gs. G al le gos au tho ri ze d the iss ua nc e of a subs et of the 8 s ub p o e n a s , b u tw a s u n a w a r e o f mo s to f t h e m. 9 { 2} W e hol d th at C ha vez v iol at ed Ru le 16- 404( A ) N MR

A of the Ru le s of 10 Profe ssion al Conduct , an d that Ga llegos vi olated Rules 16-40 4(A) and 16-501 (C) 11 N MR A of the Ru le s of

P ro fe ssi ona l C ond uc t. Thi s op ini on c lari fi es a n is sue of 12 funda m en ta l im

portanc e: it is unl aw fu l fo r a co urt or anof fi ce r of the c ourt t o is sue 13 an y sub poe nain the abse nc e of ape ndi ng j udi ci al a ct ion

. 14 I. BACKGRO UND 15 { 3} Be tw e e n 2 0 1 2 a n d2 0 1 3 , C h a v e z s i g n e da n di s s u e da tl e a s tn i n e t y - f our 16 subp oenas concerning nu m er o u s separate investigations . T he subpo enas we re 17 dir ec te d pr im ar ily

to va ri ous ce llu lar phon e pr ovi de rs se ek ing sub sc ri be r inf orm at ion 18 and call activity

in order to narrowpotential su s p ec t s , but several soug ht m edical 19 reco rd s, CYF D reco rd s, an d u ti li ty recor ds . The s ub po en as were n ot is s u e d b y a2

1 sit tin g gr an d j ur

y nor re vie w ed by an y j udi ci al of fi ce r an d w er e not

c onne ct ed

to an y 2 cases before the court. A ll of the subp oen as were filed w ith the Eighth Ju dicial 3 D istri ct

Co urt pr ior to ser

vic e and as sig ne d to a m isc el lane ous cr im ina l fil e. Be ca use 4 there w ere n o cases, there w ere no parties, and so Chavez issued the subp oenas 5 w ith out

not ic e to the ind ivi dua ls whose inf orm at ionw as be ing sou ght

. Many of the 6 subp oe na s w er e ca

pti one d Sta te of Ne w M

ex ic o v . J ohn D oe . 7 { 4} During a robbery investig ation in April 2013 , Chavez and a detec tive wished 8 to i ssu e subp oe na s duc es te cu m f or inv es tig at ive pu rp os es a nd a ske d G al le gos to 9 approve them . R espond ents condu cted research into the issu ance of such subpoenas 10 an d c onc lud ed

that the y we re law fu l. G al le gos ev en tua lly appr ove d th e pr ac tic e of 11 issui ng inv estigative subp oenas for phone sub scriber inform ation. E leven subp oenas 12 w er e iss ue d inc onne ct ionw it h th e ro bbe ry inv es tig at ion

. I n O ct obe r 2013 , 13 de fe ndants in the r obbe ry c as e fi le d am oti on t o quas h thei r indi ctm en ts bas ed on the 14 im pr ope r iss ua nc e of

sub poe na s. T he m oti on w as gr an te d and the state appe al ed to 15 th e Co ur t o f App eal s. Th atap pe al is no w pen di ng be fo re t hi s C ou rt. State v . M artin ez , 16 N o. 35, 757, orde r of c er tif ic at iona t 1- 2 ( N

. M. Ct

. App. Mar. 7, 201 6) ( non17 precedential). 18 { 5} InO ct obe r 2014 , the D isc ipl inary Bo ar d ini tiate d dis ci pli na ry a ct ion s a ga ins t3

1 Respondent s over the issuance of t he subp oenas. The Disciplin ary Board alleged that 2 Ch av ez unl aw fu lly

is s u e d s u bpoe na s, im

pr ope rl y iss ue d su bpoe na s w ith out

not if y ing 3 pa rti es in se ve ra l of

the c ontro ve rs ie s, a nd i ssu ed sub poe na s th at

f ai le d to f oll ow 4 pr oper fo rm as r equir ed by Ru le 5- 511 N MR

A a nd F orm

9- 217 N MR

A

. T he 5 Disciplinary

Board claim ed Chavez violated Rules 16 -101 NMRA , 16-304(A) , ( C) 6 N M RA , 1 6

- 3 0 5 ( C ) N M RA , 1 6

- 4 0 4 ( A ) N M RA , a n d/ o r 1 6

- 8 0 4 ( D ) N M RA

. A sid e 7 fr om the sub poe na s G al le gos au tho ri ze d in the ro bbe ry c as e, he did

not kno wof a ny 8 others unti l the filing of the discip linary action. G allegos also di d not k now that 9 subp oe na s ha d be eniss ued in i m pr ope r fo rm , ha d be eniss ue d w ith out not ic e to 10 parties in the various cases, or had bee n im properly filed. Ga llegos is im

plicated 11 prim ar i l y d ue to his su pervisory positi on with respect to Chavez. The Disciplinary 12 Board claim ed violatio ns against Ga llegos includi ng Rules 16 -101, 16-304(A), (C) , 13 16-305 (C) 16-404 (A ), 16-501(A)-( C), and/or 16-804 (D ). 14 { 6} The D isciplin ary Board designated a H earing Com m i t t ee , which found that 15 Ch av ez ’ s re se ar ch int o the iss ua nc e of the sub poe na s w as r ea sona ble a nd thor ough , 16 had not revealed a clear answe r to the q u es t i o n , and that neith er R espond ent had 1 7 “ know ing l y

a v o i d e do r

s ub v e rt e dal e g a l o b l i g a t i o no r du t y a r i s i n g f r o m e i t h e r of 18 their respective off

ices.” The He aring Com

m ittee found that dis ciplinary counsel had4

1 fa ile d to pr ove vio la tio ns o f the Ru le s of P ro fe ssi ona l C ondu ct

by e ith er Re spon de nt 2 an d r ec om

m en de d th at

the c ha rg es of

m isc ondu ct

be dis m is sed a s to both 3 Re spon de nts

. 4 { 7} On re view of the C omm ittee’ s finding s, D isciplin ary Board coun sel rej ected 5 num erous finding s of fac t as containing conclusio ns of law, includin g finding s that 6 t h e R es p o n d en t s h ad ac t ed re as o n ab l y, a n d d i s ag re ed wi t h t h e H ea ri n g Co m m i t t ee ’s 7 co nc lu si on s o f la w. 8 { 8} T he dis ci pli na ry pane l r ec om

m en de d, a nd the D isc ipl inary Bo ar d re que ste d of 9 thi s C ourt, f

orm al r ep ri m an d f

or G al le gos an d publi c ce nsur e, am or e se rious 10 puni shm ent, for Chavez. The Board also r ecom m ended that costs for the discip linary 11 action be shared betwe en the Respondents . A t the conclus ion of the hearing before 12 this Court, we ruled from the bench tha t b o th Respond ents sho uld receive form al 13 re pr im an ds b ut defer red the iss ua nc e of tho se f orm al r ep ri m an ds f

or one y ear an d 14 pr ovi de d tha t the iss ua nc e of the fo rm al re pr im an ds w oul d be au to m at ic al ly 15 w ith dr awn if

the Re spon de nts c om

m itt ed no f ur th er viola tio ns o f the Ru le s of 16 Pr of es sio na l Con duct d

ur ing the one -y ear de fe rr al pe ri od. W e al so d en ie d th e 17 assessm ent of costs against th e Respondents and indicated that we w ould issue an 18 opi nio n a t a

la te r da te to furthe r ex pla in o ur de ci sio n.5

1 II. DISC US SION 2 { 9} Ru le 17- 316( A )( 1) N MR A gr an ts this Co ur t the a uth or ity to re vie wthe 3 discipli nary

rec om m endation o f a public censure agains t Chavez. Rule 17-316(A)( 2), 4 subp ar ag ra

phs (b ) an d ( d) gr an t this Co urt auth or ity to re vie wthe r ec om

m en da tio n 5 of a fo rm al re pr im an d ag ai nst G al le gos be ca use the D isc ipl inary Board ’s peti tio n 6 al le ge s asig nif

ic an t qu es tio n of

lawa nd an is sue of

sub stanti al pub lic int er es t. 7 { 10} W ithres pe ct to the f ind ing s and c onc lus ion s of ahe ar ing c om

m itt ee , the 8 standard of reviewfor a discipl inary panel and for th is Court is the sam e: both entit ies 9 affo rdde fere nc e to fin di ng s o f fac t an d re vi ew co nc lu si on s o f la w de n ov o. In re 10 B ris tol , 200 6- N MS C- 041, ¶ ¶ 18, 26, 140 N

. M. 317, 142 P. 3d 905. T his Co urt i s no t 11 boun d by

the D isc ipl inar y

Bo ar d’ s le ga l c onc lus ion s a bout w hic h R

ule s of 12 Pro fes si on al Co nd uc t h av e b een vi ol at edby Resp on de nt s. Se e In re E strada , 200 6- 13 N MS C- 047, ¶

¶ 7, 19, 140 N

. M. 492, 143 P. 3d 731. T his Co urt a lso doe s no t de fe r to 14 re co m m en da tio ns r eg ar din g th e app ro pr ia te le ve l of disc ipl ine ; we ar e fr ee to im pose 15 le ss er o r gr eat er l ev el s o f di sc ip li ne as we de em ap pr op ria te

. B ris tol , 2006-NMS C16 041, ¶ 27. 17 A . Th e La w D oe s N ot S up po rtTh e U ni lat er al I ssu an ce of S ub po en as 18 { 11} Ru le 5- 511( A )( 1) (b ) pr ovi de s th at e ve ry sub poe nasha ll “ sta te the tit le of the6

1 ac tio n and i ts c ri m ina l ac tio n num be r. ” Rul e 5- 511( A )( 2) furthe r pr ovi de s th at “ [a ] ll 2 su bp oe na s s ha ll is su e fro m th e co ur t fo r th e di st ric t in whi ch th e m at te r is pe nd in g.” 3 T his langua ge pla inl y req ui res tha t su bpoe na s be iss ue d on ly

in co nne ct ionw ith 4 ex ist ing j udi ci al a ct ion s. T he Co urt of Appe al s de cl ar ed

una uth or iz ed subp oe na s to 5 be prosecutorial m iscondu ct in 1 9 8 5 after a district attorney unilaterally

issued 6 su bp oe na s to fin an ci al in st it ut io ns whi le in ve st ig at in g a n e m be zzl em en t ca se . Sta te 7 v. Eder , 198 5- N MC A -0 76, ¶ ¶ 2, 5, 103 N

. M. 211 , 704 P

. 2d 4 65. T he Co ur t of 8 Appeals stated that using unautho rized subpoenas t o com pel witnesses to produce 9 docum ents “ has been deem ed coercive and int im i d at i ng. T o the extent that an 10 unkn owing witness m ay feel com pelled to attend or produce docum ents, the prac tice 11 am ount s to perpetrating a deceit on t h e witness.” Id

. ¶ 5. The Court of Appeals has 12 also held that no t even a sitting di strict court j udge po ssesses the autho rity to com pel 13 a person to subm it evidence when no com plaint, inform ation or indi ctm ent has been 14 fi le d a ga ins t the pe rs on and thus w he n no c ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n ha s c om m en ce d. 15 Sanc he

z v. A tto rne

y G en eral , 1979 -N MC A -0 81, ¶¶ 12, 20, 93 N

. M. 210 , 598 P

. 2d 16 1170

. 17 { 12} Re spon de nts a rg ue that the y m ad e a re as ona

ble de ci si on in iss uin g th e 18 subp oe na s a t i ssu e be ca use the ir r es earc h r ev ea le d no N ewMe xic o auth or ity7

1 disallowing th e process. Chavez r elied on several autho rities that he determ ined wer e 2 am bigu ous on the issue: NMSA1978 , S ection 36-2-11 (1 9 53); federal stored 3 co m m un ic at io ns laws , 18 U.S.C. §§ 27 01 -2 71 2 (2 01 2) ; an d R ul e 1 -0 45 NMRA. 4 { 13} Se ct ion36- 2- 11( A ) pr ovi de s: 5 A n a tto rn ey

ha s auth or ity : t o exe cu te in the na m e of his c lie nt any bon d 6 or oth er w ri tte n ins tr um en t ne ce ssary an d pr ope r fo r the pr ose cu tio n of 7 an act ion or

pr oc ee din g a

bout to be or a lr ea dy c om m en ce d, or

f or the 8 pr ose cu tio n or de fe nse of an y ri ght gr ow ing out of ana ct ion , pr oc ee din g 9 orfin al jud gm en t re nd ered th erei n[ .] 10 W e re ad

the langua ge “ ana ct ion

. . . ab out to be or a lr ea dy c om m en ce d” to inc lud e 11 onl y tho se a ct ion s sanc tio ne d by agr an d j ur

y or adis tr ic t c ourt. T his vie wis 1 2 s up p o rt e db y Sanchez . 19 79 -NMCA- 08 1, ¶¶ 27 -2 8. We ho ld th atSect io n 3 6- 2- 11 (A) 13 doe s no t pr ovi de auth or ity fo r a pr ose cu tor to uni la te ra lly

iss ue sub poe na s pr ior

to the 14 co m m en ce m en t of

aj udi ci al a ct ion

. 15 { 14} T he f

ed er al c om

m uni ca tio ns l aw s onw hic h C ha ve z re lie d p ro vi de tha t a 16 gove rn m en ta l e nti ty

m ay r equir e the dis cl osur e of sto re d el ec tr oni c co m m uni ca tio n 17 re cord s “ on ly p ur suant t o aw ar rant i ssu ed

usi ng the pr oc ed

ur es de sc ri be d inthe 18 Fe de ra l Ru le s of Cr im ina l Pr oc ed ur e (o r, in the ca se of a St at e co urt, iss ue d u sin g 19 State w arrant procedures) by a court of c om

petent jurisdiction.” 18 U .S .C. § 2703 (a). 20 Subsection (b)(1) provides that no ti ce to custom ers or subscribers is not required8

1 w he re the inf

or m at ionis requ es te d pu rs ua nt t o aw ar rant b ut i s r equir ed

if the 2 inf orm at ionis re quest ed pur suant t o ac ourt or de r or “ ana dm ini str at ive sub poe na 3 authorized by

a Fe deral or St ate statute or a F ederal or State grand jury or trial 4 subp oe na . ” A s C ha ve z re co gni zed, this auth or ity doe s no t a ddr es s th e que sti on o f 5 w he the r ana ct ionm

ust be pe ndi ng b ef

or e a subp oe naiss ue s. 6 { 15} Rule 1-045 is a Rule of Civil Procedure analogo us t o t h e Ru le of Cr im inal 7 Pr oc ed ur e, Ru le 5- 511, appl ic ab le to thi s c as e. O ne of the d if fe re nc es be tw ee n th e 8 ru le s a ppe ar s in Ru le 1- 045( A )( 3) , w hic h pr ovi de s tha t “ [a ] n a tto rn ey auth or iz ed

to 9 pr ac tic e lawin N ewMe xic o and who r ep re se nts aparty , a s an of fi ce r of the c ourt, 1 0 m a y a l s o i s s u e a n d s i g n a s ub p o e n a o n b e h a l f o f t h e c o u rt

. ” T h e r u l e p r o v ide s no 1 1 au t h o ri t y fo r t h e i s s u an ce o f a s ub p o en a b y a p ro s ec u t o r i n t h e ab s en ce o f t h e c o u rt ’s 12 au th or it y ; wi th ou t s uc h a ut ho rit y , a pr os ecu to r is no t acti ng “ on be ha lf o f th e co ur t.” 13 Fu rth er, both r

ule s r equir e tha t a

sub poe nastate the ti tle of the a ct iona nd i ts c as e 14 num ber. Rule 1-045(A)( 1)(b); Rule 5-511(A) (1)(b). It i s im poss ible to inclu de an 15 ac curate ti tle a nd c as e num be r w he n no j udi ci al a ct ionha s be ene sta bli she d. 16 { 16} Chavez concluded that in the absence of an express prohibiti on, the issuance 17 of uni la te ra l su

bpoe na s sh oul d be pe rm iss ibl e, a nd h e co nvi nc ed G al le gos of

the 18 sa m e. W e d is ag ree fo r se ve ral reas on s. As a pr act ic al m at te r, we read all of t he laws9

1 re lie d up on b y

Ch av ez—S ec tio n 36 -2 -1 1, 18 U

. S. C. Sect io n 2703 , a nd R ule 1- 2 045—t o require a court’ s acquiescence to the issuance of a su bpoena, and this in turn 3 requires an existing judic i al ac t i on. More im portantly , a s a m atter of f undam ental 4 pol ic y , w e em

pha siz e tha t the abse nc e of apr ohi bit iondoe s no t e qua l pe rm iss ion

. 5 { 17} Pr ose cu tor s bear sig nif ic an t re spon sib ili ty

in the a dm ini str at ionof

the law . T he 6 N inth C ir cu it ha s obse rv ed , “ [t ] he G ove rn m en t i s th e str onge st l iti gant i n th e w or ld. 7 Y ou h av e got

the F.B.I. a nd a ll the gov er nm en t a ge nc ie s a va ila

ble to y ou. Y ou 8 represe nt the strongest client in the world.” Lenske v . U nited Sta tes , 383 F. 2d 2 0, 22 9 (1967). T he United State s Suprem e Court h as s ai d that the United States A ttorney 10 re pr es en ts n ot an or din ar y party to a co ntr ove rs y

but 11 a sove re ign ty w hose obl iga tio n to gove rn im pa rt ia lly is as co m

pelli ng 12 as it s ob lig at ionto go ve rn a t a ll; a nd w hose int er es t, the re fo re , in a 13 cr im ina l pr ose cu tio n is not that i t sha ll w in a ca se , but that j ust ic e sha ll 14 be don e. . . . I t i s a s m uc h hi s du ty

to re fr ai n f

ro m im pr ope r m ethods 15 calculated to produce a w rongful conv iction as i t is to use every 16 legitim ate m eans to bring abou t a j ust on e. 17 Be rger v. U

nited Sta tes , 295 U

. S. 78, 88 ( 1935 ). T his duty of f ai rn es s e xte nds to a ll 18 parties to j udicial actions, and in this case it extended to the recipients of subpo enas 19 as we l l as the people whose inform ation was being soug ht, none of whom we re 20 pa rti es to jud ic ia l ac ti on s. 21 { 18} D isc ipl inary

c ouns el ide nti fi ed the gr av am en in thi s c as e as the Re spon de nts ’10

1 iss ua nc e of

“ pr e- ind ic tm en t” sub poen as . As a p oin t of c lari fi ca tio n, pr e- ind ic tm en t 2 subp oe na s are not

pe r se unl aw fu l. S ubpo en as a re ro uti ne ly iss ue d pr e- ind ic tm en t i n 3 co nn e c t i on wit h g ran d ju ry pro ceed in gs un de r NMSA 1 97 8, Se ct io n 3 1- 6- 12 (A) 4 (1 979) : 5 T he gr an d jury ha s pow er to ord er the a tte ndanc e of w itn es se s be fo re it , 6 to cause the productio n o f al l publ ic and private rec ords or other 7 ev ide nc e re le va nt t o it s in qui ry a nd t o enf

or ce suc h po w er

by sub poe na 8 issue d onit s ow n auth or ity thr oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt c onve nin g th e 9 gr an d j ur

y a nd e xe cu te d by

a ny pub lic of

fi ce r ch ar ge d w iththe 10 ex ec uti on o f le ga l pr oc es s of the dis tr ic t c ourt. 11 { 19} Ne cessarily , s u b p o en as issued pu rsuant to that statu te in a grand j ury 12 pr oc ee din g are pr e- ind ic tm en t su bpoe na s. Co nve rs el y , som e post-ind ic tm en t 13 subp oe n as m ay

be unlawful. For exam

ple, if these sam e subpoen as we re issued 14 uni la te ral ly by

apr ose cu tor

or de fe nse a tto rn ey

or oth er law y er a ft er dis m iss al or 15 otherresolution of a c ase, they would be unlawful even though they occurre d after 16 indictm ent. T he problem in this case was not w hether the subpo enas we re issu ed pre17 indictm ent or post-ind ictm ent, but that they we re not issued i n co nnection with an 18 au th or iz in g p ro ceed in g. 19 B. Th e Iss ua nc e of U ni lat er al S ub po en as V iol at ed t he R ul es of P ro fe ssi on al 20 Cond uct11

1 { 20} W e hold that Chavez violated Rule 16-40 4(A) and that Ga llegos vi olated Rules 2 16-404 (A ) and 1 6-501(C). Rule 16-305 (D ) requires intent to disrupt a tribunal, w hich 3 is not evi de nt her e. Re spon de nts ’ co nduc t did ar gua bly im pli cate the r em ai nin g r

ule s, 4 bu t b ecau se Ru le s 1 6- 40 4( A) an d 1 6- 50 1( C) ad eq ua te ly add res s t he co nd uc t, we 5 de cl ine to re ac h vi olatio ns o f Ru le s 16 -1 01, 16- 304, or 16- 804. 6 { 21} Ru le 16- 404( A ) pr ovi de s th at “ a law y er

sha ll not use m eans th at ha ve no 7 subs tanti al pur

pose othe r than to e m

ba rr as s, de lay

or bur de n athi rd

pe rs on, or

use 8 m ethods of obtaini ng e vidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.” C havez 9 ha s arg ue d th at

no r igh ts w er e vio la te d be ca use a def en da nt la ck s a righ t to knoww ho 10 is sub poenaed for grand j ury proceedings, and because no evidence w as presented 11 supp ortin g the cl ai m tha t an y ind ivi dua l’ s ri ght s w er e vio la te d. G al le gos ci te s Sm ith 12 v. M ary lan d f or the pr opos iti on tha t t el ephone sub sc ri be rs sho uld harb or no 13 expectation that the nu m bers they dial will rem ain secret. 442 U.S . 735, 743 (1979). 14 Bu t S m ith i s p la in ly dis ti ng ui sh ab le

. Sm ith considered the adm issib ility of dialed 1 5 p h o n e n u mb e r s d e t e c t e d b y a mo n i t o r i n g d e v i c e i n s t a l l e do n ad e f e n d a n t ’s l i n e b y a 16 ph on e co m

pa ny at th e req ue st of p ol ic e. Sm ith , 442 U.S

. at 7 37. T he United State s 17 Suprem e Court h eld that such a m onito ring device d oes not cons titute a search under12

1 the Fo urth A m en dm en t to the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n and tha t de fe ndants sho uld 2 no t exp ect pr iv acy in t he nu m be rs th ey di al

. Id

. at74 2. Sm ith does not add ress the key 3 iss ue in thi s c as e, w hic h is the im pr ope r iss ua nc e of

sub poe na s. 4 { 22} Fo rm

9- 217, w hic h pr ovi de s ate m pla te f o r s u b p o en as , c ont ai ns a

ste rnw ar nin g 5 to its addressees: “ IF Y OUDO NO T C OMP LY W IT H T HI S SU BPO EN A y ou m ay 6 be held in contem

pt of court and pun ished byfine or im prisonm en t .” In this case, 7 se ndi ng s ubpo en as that i m pli ed co ur t author ity , but la ck ed it , a ff ec te d th e ri ght s of 8 the sub poe nar ec ipi en ts and thir d part ie s intw o i m pe rm issibl e w ay s. F ir st, the 9 unauth or iz ed sub poe na s se nt t o c om m uni ca tio ns p ro vid er s un fa ir ly de pr ive d th ose 10 pr ovi de rs of the ri ght to co nduc t or din ar y busi ne ss an d fo rc ed the m to e xpe nd 11 re sour ce s and p er sonn el to res po nd be fo re ar es pons e w as r equir ed in the na m e of 12 j ust ic e. S ec ond, be ca

use the subp oe na s w er e unc onne ct ed to pe ndi ng j udi ci al a ct ion s, 1 3 t h e t h i r d p a rt i e s w h o s e i n f o rm a t i o n w a s b e i n g s o u g h t w e r e n o t p a rt i e s , w e r e not 14 notified, and therefore had n o o p p ortunityto contest the release of their personal 15 info rmation . T his is especially troublesom e in the fewcases w here the subpoenas 16 soug ht p ri va te inf

orm at ionincl ud in g m ed ic al r ec or ds, CY FD r ec or ds, a nd u til ity 17 re co rd s. F urthe rm or e, in ge ne ra l, the pr ac tic e of iss uin g su

bpoe nas ou ts id e the13

1 au tho ri ty

a nd a cquie sc en ce of

ac ourt or a gr an d j ur

y pose s fo re se ea

ble an d a larm ing 2 ri sks to the f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s o f o r d i n a ry c i t i z e n s . A p e r s o n m a y h a v e a r i g h tto 3 de cl ine to co ope rate w ithapol ic e inv es tig at ion

. O nc e a subpo en a iss ue s prop er ly , it 4 de pr i ve s t he r e c i pi e nt of t he r i gh t no t t o c oo pe r a t e . A su bp oe na t hatissues 5 im pr ope rl y , but

ha s th e gui se of

auth or ity a nd c ar ri es the thr ea t of

pun ish m en t, f

al se ly 6 sugg es ts tha t the re ci pie nt is leg al ly re qui re d to an sw er an d has the re fo re los t the r igh t 7 not to re spon d. Th is i s m isl ea din g and u nf ai r, a nd r ep re se nts a n a buse of the 8 g o v e rn men t ’s s ub s t a n t i a l p o w e r a n dr e s p o n s i b i l i t y. 9 { 23} G al le g o s a l o n e v i o l a t e dR u l e 1 6

- 5 0 1 ( C ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a tas up e rv i sin g 10 attorney

bears r espons ibilityfor a subo rdinate’ s violatio n if the supervisin g attorney 11 kn ows ab ou t t he im

pr op er con du ct an d rati fie s i t, o r if th e su pe rv is in g a tt or ne y

kn ows 12 of the co nduc t at a tim e w he n its cons eque nc es can be avoi de d or m iti ga te d bu t f

ai ls 13 to take reasonable rem edial action. Gallegos argues that he did no t know the issuance 14 of unilateral subp oenas was im proper, and therefore he did not kno wingly endorse a 15 vio la tio n. W e hold tha t Ga lle gos did know ing ly ratif y the iss ua nc e of the sub poe na s, 16 and his m istake as to the law does not p ro t ec t h i m . Based on the analy sis abov e, 17 G al le gos shou ld hav e know n that the iss ua nc e of the subp oe na s vi ola te d th e Ru le s of14

1 Profe ssion al Conduct. Furthe rmor e, we are concerned that Ga llegos was not awar e 2 of the practice until Chavez brough t it to his attention an d that his o ffice lacked 3 s u f f i c i e n tc o n t r o l s t o p r e c l u d e t h e p r a c t i c e . We u r g e Ne wM e x i c o d i s t r i c ta t t o rn e ys 4 to m ai nta in s uf

fi ci en t tra ini ng and o ve rs igh t t o a voi d th e impr ope r iss ua nc e of 5 subp oenas in the future. 6 C . D isc ip lin ar y D isp osi ti on 7 { 24} The A m erican Bar A ssociation (A BA) Stan d ar d s for Im posin g Lawy er 8 Sanctions, Standard 5. 22, provides that su spen s ion is th e appropriate consequence 9 “ w he n a

law y er in anof fi ci al or gov er nm en ta l po sit ionkno w ing ly f ai ls t o f oll ow 10 pr ope r pr oc ed

ur es or r ule s, a nd c au se s in

jury or pot en tia l i nj ur

y to a pa rty

or to the 11 int eg rit y of the le ga l pr oc es s. ” Be ca use Re spon de nts sho uld

ha ve kno w n th at

the 12 subp oe na s inthe se c as es w er e iss ue d wit ho ut l eg al sup port and i n vi ola tio n of our 13 Rules of Profe ssio n al Conduct, suspensi on m ight o rdinarily be the proper course. 14 H ow ev er , thi s C ourt r eco gn iz es th at the re is no e vid en ce in the r ec or d to sho w 15 Re spon de nts e xhi bit ed ba d f ai th o r anint en t to de ce ive w he n th ey iss ue d th e 16 subp oe na s. W e also r ec ogni ze that R es pond en ts h av e co m pli ed f ull y w iththe 17 dis ci pli na ry

pr oc ee din gs a ga ins t the m . Bo th o f the se a re f ac tor s w ar

r an t i n g m i t i ga tio n15

1 under ABAStandards 9.32(b) and (e ). 2 { 25} W e hol d th at

f orm al r ep ri m an d is the pr ope r sanc tio n f or both R es pond en ts, 3 and a s pr e vi ou sl y or de r e d by t hi s C ourt , t he r e pr i m a nd a s t o e a c h R e sp on de nt has 4 be ende fe rr ed

f or one y ear. If ne ith er Re spon de nt eng ag es in f urthe r vio la tio ns o f the 5 Ru le s of

P ro fe ssi ona l C ondu ct

w it hinthat t im e, the r ep ri m an ds w ill be w ith dr awn. 6 W e al so w ai ve Re spon de nts ’ c ost s ari sin g f ro m thi s pr oc ee din g. 7 { 26} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice 10 WE CO NCUR:

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 12 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 14 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice16

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 2 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 4 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice