Court Opinion

ID: 9788301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:40:05.922174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:07.830136
License: Public Domain

ROBINSON, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). {30} I agree with the majority’s reversal on sanctions two and three, but I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance on the first sanction. Our cases routinely allow an attorney notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. I disagree with the majority’s holding that the first sanction involves merely a rules violation and that sanctions can be imposed summarily. The ease relied on by the majority for this proposition is Dona Ana Savs. & Loan v. Mitchell, 113 N.M. at 578, 829 P.2d at 657. But that ease involves a sanction under Rule 11, and deals with pleadings filed in bad faith, which is not the situation here. Assuming that failure to disclose a witness is analogous to filing a pleading in bad faith under Rule 11, even under Dona Ana Savs. & Loan, the attorney was issued an order to show cause and given a meaningful opportunity to respond. Id. at 579, 829 P.2d at 658. Dona Ana Savs. & Loan is in accordance with other New Mexico cases that consistently express the requirement of a show cause order, and allow the attorney to prepare and present a defense. See In re Avallone, 91 N.M. 777, 778, 581 P.2d 870, 871 (1978) (where attorney failed to follow appellate court rules and requirements, court held the attorney in contempt after an order to show cause and a hearing); Diamond, 94 N.M. at 121, 607 P.2d at 659 (attorney who did not report in as required was entitled to be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, to be represented by counsel, and to call witnesses, and could not be punished summarily); In re Klecan, 93 N.M. at 639, 603 P.2d at 1096 (summary contempt inappropriate where the attorney did not have prior warning, an opportunity to explain, and a hearing). The majority has not cited, and I have not found, a New Mexico case that allows a court to impose a significant fine on an attorney without issuing an order to show cause. {31} I do not condone defense counsel’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. However, a significant sanction should not be summarily imposed without giving the attorney adequate process, In re Avallone; Diamond, or, unless the attorney has engaged in serious misconduct in the presence of the court, In re Klecan. I cannot agree that confronting an attorney with a rule violation and then demanding an immediate response provides a “reasonable opportunity to meet [the charge] by way of defense or explanation.” Diamond, 94 N.M. at 121, 607 P.2d at 659 (internal quotations and citations omitted). There is no opportunity for the attorney to obtain his own counsel, and no opportunity to call witnesses, if the attorney or his counsel chooses to do so. Having heard the attorney’s brief explanation that he forgot to list the witness, the proper procedure would have been for the court to issue an order to show cause. That would have ensured that the attorney received the process due under Diamond, In re Avallone, and even under Dona Ana Savs. & Loan. {32} The majority concludes that the process was sufficient because more process would not have changed anything, since defense counsel admitted he forgot to list the witness. I disagree. It is unfair to deny someone notice and a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense, by concluding that the defense would have been the same. If the attorney had received due process, he would have had a fair opportunity to reflect upon and explain why he failed to list the witness. Perhaps his trial schedule had been heavy, or given time to explain after reflection, he may have remembered some detail about his failure that would have made him less blameworthy. While his failure may not have been excused, perhaps an explanation or defense would have resulted in a lesser sanction. But defense counsel was never given the opportunity to prepare a defense, to reflect on and explain the reasons for his failure, or to present anything else that may have resulted in a reduced fine, or no fine at all. Our cases consistently recognize this right, holding that due process requires that an attorney accused of misconduct be issued an order to show cause and an opportunity to respond at a later date. {33} The majority concludes that little process is due because this is a rules violation, and the $250 fine is modest. I disagree. I consider the fine to be significant. If this is to be treated as merely a rules violation, which the majority asserts allows a court to summarily sanction an attorney, then the fine should be commensurate with a rules violation and the recognition that the attorney has received virtually no process. The fine here is significant and it is unfair to impose it without sufficient process. {34} Encouraged by the prosecutor, the court fined defense counsel $250 without giving him adequate process, fined him again after calling a mistrial when there may not have been a need to do so, and prohibited him from practicing law not just in his own court, but in all the courts of the Fifth Judicial District. Given the pattern of sanctions in this case, I am unwilling to conclude that the scant process used to impose the $250 fine is sufficient. {35} Because I find the demand for an immediate explanation and the instantaneous imposition of a $250 fine to be an inadequate measure of due process, I respectfully dissent.