Court Opinion

ID: 9533718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:34:08.113123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:08.553716
License: Public Domain

RIORDAN, Justice (specially concurring). I fully concur with the Court’s decision in disbarring Mr. Duffy. However, I cannot concur in the opinion because of the Court’s unwillingness to refer this matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority for possible criminal prosecution. NMSA 1978, Disc.Brd.P.Rule 4 (Supp.1984), does not apply to this case at this point. Rule 4 provides in part: (a) Confidentiality. Except as otherwise provided by this rule, any investigation and any investigatory hearing conducted by or under the direction of disciplinary counsel, or their authorized agents, shall be entirely confidential unless and until they become matters of public record by being filed in the Supreme Court, or are otherwise released according to these rules. (b) Exceptions. Information relating to disciplinary proceedings may be released by the disciplinary board as follows: (1) where investigation reasonably causes the disciplinary board to believe in good faith that a crime may have been committed, the name of the subject, general nature of the possible crime and names of known witnesses to relevant facts shall be made available to an appropriate prosecuting authority * * *. (Emphasis added.) This Rule merely allows the disciplinary board to release otherwise confidential information to the appropriate prosecuting authority while the case is pending. I am disappointed that they did not report this matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority when it was reported to them. I believe that we should not only discipline lawyers who take advantage of the position conferred upon them by the license we grant to practice law, but we should also assure that they do not receive special or preferential treatment from law enforcement. We should therefore turn over all information we have to the appropriate law enforcement officials or prosecuting authorities so they can determine if criminal prosecution is warranted, which procedure was followed by this Court in In the Matter of Ortega, 1-01 N.M. 719, 688 P.2d 329 (1984). In this case, Duffy deposited checks in his account that did not belong to him and converted the funds to his own use. The matter should now be referred to the prosecuting authorities to determine if a crime was committed that should be prosecuted.