{ "id": 4333429, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF MARIA E. OWEN, ESQUIRE An Attorney Suspended from the Practice of Law in the State of New Mexico and IN THE MATTER OF ALAIN JACKSON, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico", "name_abbreviation": "In re Owen", "decision_date": "2013-06-27", "docket_number": "Docket No. 33,843; Docket No. 33,844", "first_page": "471", "last_page": "477", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2013-NMSC-035" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "118 N.M. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1563531 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591-94", "parenthetical": "an attorney who failed to pursue representation of clients and who abandoned his office and all forms of communication with his clients was subject to a one-year suspension" }, { "page": "482-85", "parenthetical": "an attorney who failed to pursue representation of clients and who abandoned his office and all forms of communication with his clients was subject to a one-year suspension" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/118/0590-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 716947 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694-95", "parenthetical": "extending attorney's suspension because of, inter alia, numerous violations of Rule 16-116(D)" }, { "page": "130-31", "parenthetical": "extending attorney's suspension because of, inter alia, numerous violations of Rule 16-116(D)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N.M. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1598921 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255", "parenthetical": "suspending attorney indefinitely after attorney failed to complete cases, protect interests of former clients, or refund fees" }, { "page": "951", "parenthetical": "suspending attorney indefinitely after attorney failed to complete cases, protect interests of former clients, or refund fees" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/105/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N.M. 774", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 322298 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774-75", "parenthetical": "disbarring attorney who embezzled client's money and lied to client regarding settlement proceeds for several months" }, { "page": "1390-91", "parenthetical": "disbarring attorney who embezzled client's money and lied to client regarding settlement proceeds for several months" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/122/0774-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N.M. 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1561206 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770", "parenthetical": "suspending indefinitely an attorney who failed to docket an appeal and lied to his client for seven years about the status of the appeal" }, { "page": "670", "parenthetical": "suspending indefinitely an attorney who failed to docket an appeal and lied to his client for seven years about the status of the appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/119/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5323050 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22-23", "parenthetical": "explaining that the relationship between attorney and client is \"one of trust and confidence,\" and the law requires that acts and conduct of attorney in transactions with his client \"be characterized by absolute fairness, good faith and honesty\"" }, { "page": "907-08", "parenthetical": "explaining that the relationship between attorney and client is \"one of trust and confidence,\" and the law requires that acts and conduct of attorney in transactions with his client \"be characterized by absolute fairness, good faith and honesty\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 P.3d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2013-NMSC-008", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4190808 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/3/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 N.M. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725473 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "concluding that attorney had abandoned her clients when she accepted representation but failed to complete agreed upon services" }, { "page": "63-65", "parenthetical": "concluding that attorney had abandoned her clients when she accepted representation but failed to complete agreed upon services" }, { "page": "689" }, { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 716921 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181", "parenthetical": "suspending attorney who, among other things, failed to file an answer or enter an appearance in client's divorce case" }, { "page": "863", "parenthetical": "suspending attorney who, among other things, failed to file an answer or enter an appearance in client's divorce case" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.M. 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1594889 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498-99", "parenthetical": "disbarring attorney for, among other things, inaction in a divorce case" }, { "page": "969-70", "parenthetical": "disbarring attorney for, among other things, inaction in a divorce case" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/104/0496-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 786, "char_count": 17120, "ocr_confidence": 0.824, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14657109352707437 }, "sha256": "467eb0bd5f009ed1793fef88b2379655d4746ba369e03e1af4e59987b79a787c", "simhash": "1:4a0117b2c488e276", "word_count": 2639 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:50:37.461651+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice", "WE CONCUR:", "PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice", "EDWARD L. CH\u00c1VEZ, Justice", "CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice", "BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice" ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF MARIA E. OWEN, ESQUIRE An Attorney Suspended from the Practice of Law in the State of New Mexico and IN THE MATTER OF ALAIN JACKSON, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION AND PUBLIC CENSURE\nBOSSON, Justice\nThis matter comes before this Court following disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Rules Governing Discipline, Rules 17-201 to-214 and 17-301 to -316NMRA, in which the Disciplinary Board (Board) found that attorneys Maria E. Owen and Alain Jackson (Respondents) violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. The disciplinary proceedings arose from a business lease dispute in which Owen transferred representation of clients to Jackson.\nOn August 6, 2012, a hearing committee of the Disciplinary Board entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for discipline, which were approved by the Board on September 20,2012. Following oral argument we issued an order on November 15, 2012, adopting the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board with several modifications. We suspended both Respondents for eighteen months to be deferred with certain terms and conditions, including supervision by a licensed attorney and payment of restitution to Complainants. We also ordered Respondents to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE). Finally, we ordered that Respondents receive a public censure for their misconduct. This Opinion serves as Respondents\u2019 public censure and shall be published in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin and New Mexico Appellate Reports.\nBACKGROUND\nThe following factual background is taken from the Disciplinary Board\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law. At various points in time, Respondents each represented Ruth Porta and Karen Diaz (Complainants), who owned a daycare business. Owen represented Complainants in a landlord-tenant lease dispute regarding the premises of the daycare as well as two other matters. On May 17, 2010, Owen transferred her representation of Complainants daycare lease dispute to Jackson. All parties agreed and consented to the transfer. Shortly thereafter, on May 25, 2010, Jackson filed a lawsuit on behalf of Complainants against defendants MyBank, the mortgage holder, and Nikolaus and Indra Filip, the property owners.\nAs a result of personal issues, family illness, and his father\u2019s death, Jackson failed to properly attend to the lawsuit after filing it. On July 6, 2010, MyBank filed a motion to dismiss Complainants\u2019 lawsuit. Jackson failed to file a response to the motion or to inform his clients of the motion. Due to his inattentiveness, in late July or early August of 2010, Complainants fired Jackson and rehired Owen. Owen agreed to take over Complainants\u2019 lawsuit and notified Jackson that she intended to do so. Also at this time, Owen obtained Complainants\u2019 file from Jackson\u2019s office.\nAlthough Complainants had terminated Jackson as their attorney, Jackson failed to withdraw as counsel of record in the lawsuit, or notify the court or opposing counsel of this development. To make matters worse, Owen failed to file an entry of appearance or substitution of counsel in the lawsuit. Due to Jackson\u2019s failure to properly withdraw as counsel of record and Owen\u2019s failure to properly enter her appearance and notify the court that she was now counsel of record, Jackson continued to receive all notices, correspondence, and pleadings regarding the lawsuit. Both Jackson and Owen were aware of this.\nJackson delivered the notices, correspondence, and mail regarding the lawsuit to Owen or Owen\u2019s husband, who Owen employed at her law firm. Conveniently, both Owen\u2019s and Jackson\u2019s offices were located in the same building.\nJohn Campbell, an attorney for the individual defendants, the Filips, entered an appearance and attempted to contact Jackson regarding the lawsuit. Jackson eventually left Mr. Campbell a voice mail informing him that he no longer represented Complainants and that Owen had taken over the case.\nComplainants experienced many problems with Owen\u2019s representation. Owen took \u201cno action whatsoever on behalf of Complainants in the lawsuit.\u201d Additionally, Owen \u201cfailed or refused to respond to Complainants\u2019 inquiries and at other times gave assurances to the effect that nothing was happening in the lawsuit.\u201d Despite these assurances, on November 1, 2010, the Filips filed an answer, a counterclaim, and a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Campbell also informed both Owen and Jackson that he sought to remove Complainants\u2019 daycare center from the Filip\u2019s property and was preparing a motion for summary judgment to this effect.\nCampbell filed the motion for summary judgment and writ of execution on behalf of the Filips seeking to evict Complainants\u2019 daycare business from his clients\u2019 property on D ecemb er 13,2010. Jackson and O wen failed to respond either to MyBank\u2019s motion to dismiss or to the individual defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, counterclaim, motion for summary judgment, and writ of execution.\nOn December 20, 2010, the court granted MyBank\u2019s motion to dismiss, recognizing that neither Complainants nor counsel had appeared. Less than three months later, on March 7, 2011, \u201cthe Court substantially granted the Filips\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a Writ of Execution in Forcible Entry or D etainer.\u201d That very same day, Campbell emailed Jackson copies of the court orders.\nJackson and Owen failed to attend court hearings and also failed to inform Complainants about the dismissal order, the summary judgment, or the writ of execution. It was only after the court had granted MyBank\u2019s motion to dismiss and the Filip\u2019s motion for summary judgment and writ of execution that Owen belatedly notified the clients. Realizing that the court had granted an eviction order, Owen called Complainant Diaz on March 10, 2011, and informed her that their daycare business was being evicted as of April 1, 2011.\nUpon learning this, Complainant Diaz asked for her file from Owen, which Owen\u2019s husband delivered the next day. Following these events, Complainants obtained new legal counsel who persuaded the court to set aside the summary judgment and writ of execution. This cost Complainants $6,400 in legal fees.\nDISCUSSION\nBoth Respondents violated Rule 16-101 NMRA (requiring a lawyer to \u201cprovide competent representation to a client\u201d). Owen violated Rule 16-103 NMRA (requiring diligent and prompt representation of client), Rule 16-104(A)(2) and (3) NMRA (requiring consultation with client regarding objectives and requiring attorney \u201cto keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter\u201d), and Rule 16-302 NMRA (requiring lawyer to make \u201creasonable efforts to expedite litigation\u201d). Jackson violated Rule 16-116(D) NMRA (requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client\u2019s interests when terminating representation).\nViolations by Both Respondents\nRespondents did not act competently in handling Complainants\u2019 lease dispute. See Rule 16-101 (\u201cA lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.\u201d). Attorney inaction constitutes lack of competence. See In re Gallegos, 104 N.M. 496, 498-99, 723 P.2d 967, 969-70 (1986) (disbarring attorney for, among other things, inaction in a divorce case).\nJackson\u2019s inactions included failing to respond to MyB ank\u2019s motion to dismiss and then, after transferring the case back to Owen, failing to file a notice of withdrawal and substitution of counsel. Owen also failed to competently represent Complainants. Once she re-acquired representation of Complainants, Owen failed to file an entry of appearance or substitution of counsel, leaving Jackson as the only attorney of record. See In re Trujillo, 110 N.M. 180, 181, 793 P.2d 862, 863 (1990) (suspending attorney who, among other things, failed to file an answer or enter an appearance in client\u2019s divorce case). After again accepting representation of Complainants\u2019 case from Jackson, Owen took no further action on the case. Essentially, both attorneys abandoned their clients. See In re Shepard, 115 N.M. 687-89, 858 P.2d 63, 63-65 (1993) (concluding that attorney had abandoned her clients when she accepted representation but failed to complete agreed upon services). \u201cAn attorney\u2019s abandonment of her clients . . . causes direct harm to her clients and undermines public confidence in the legal profession.\u201d Id. at 689, 858 P.2d at 65.\nThe failure by both Respondents to file the appropriate entry, withdrawal, or substitution of counsel motions reveals a basic lack of competency and diligence. See In re Chavez, 2013-NMSC-008, \u00b6 11, 299 P.3d 403 (concluding that attorney\u2019s failure to meet a court deadline \u201cfell below the standards of competence and diligence required of attorneys\u201d). A simple follow-up by either Jackson or Owen would have set the record straight as to who legally bore responsibility for continued representation of Complainants. Respondents\u2019 inaction and lack of thoroughness caused Complainants to suffer adverse consequences and incur additional attorney fees.\nViolations by Owen\nRespondent Owen committed numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. First, Owen was not diligent in representing Complainants. Accordingto Rule 16-103,\u201cA lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.\u201d Owen took no action on Complainants\u2019 case, utterly failing to act with any kind of \u201creasonable diligence\u201d or \u201cpromptness\u201d in representing Complainants. Essentially, Owen did nothing until she notified Complainants that they were being evicted from their property. By doing nothing, she failed to act with diligence on behalf of her clients. See Rule 16-103 cmt. 1 (\u201cA lawyer must... act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client\u2019s behalf.\u201d); Rule 16-302 (\u201cA lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.\u201d).\nOwen also failed to adequately communicate with Complainants. Pursuant to Rule 16-104(A)(2), \u201cA lawyer shall . . . reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client\u2019s objectives are to be accomplished.\u201d In addition, \u201cA lawyer shall. . . keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.\u201d Rule 16-104(A)(3). \u201cA lawyer\u2019s regular communication with clients will minimize the occasions on which a client will need to request information concerning the representation.\u201d Rule 16-104 cmt. 4.\nOwen violated these mandates in numerous ways. At no time did Owen communicate with Complainants about how to accomplish their objectives as required by Rule 104(A)(2). Instead, the record reflects that Owen initiated contact with Complainants twice \u2014 in August 2010 when she agreed to take over their representation and on March 10, 2011, when she informed Diaz that Complainants were being evicted.\nOwen also failed to keep Complainants reasonably informed about the status of their case as required by Rule 16-104(A)(3). The record reflects that Complainants initiated most of the communications with Owen. Owen made little effort to communicate with Complainants and failed to promptly return or acknowledge Complainants\u2019 phone calls. See Rule 16-104 cmt. 4 (\u201cClient telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged.\u201d). Had Owen maintained regular contact with her clients, Complainants would have discovered that their case was not being pursued and could have obtained different counsel sooner.\nAdditionally, Owen\u2019s willingness to misrepresent the status of the case to Complainants is deeply disturbing. Lying to a client implicates the fundamental relationship between the lawyer and the client and an attorney\u2019s fitness to practice law. See Van Orman v. Nelson, 78 N.M. 11, 22-23, 427 P.2d 896, 907-08 (1967) (explaining that the relationship between attorney and client is \u201cone of trust and confidence,\u201d and the law requires that acts and conduct of attorney in transactions with his client \u201cbe characterized by absolute fairness, good faith and honesty\u201d). We have severely disciplined attorneys in the past for such conduct. See e.g., In re Roberts, 119 N.M. 769, 770, 895 P.2d 669, 670 (1995) (suspending indefinitely an attorney who failed to docket an appeal and lied to his client for seven years about the status of the appeal); In re Rohr, 122 N.M. 774, 774-75, 931 P.2d 1390, 1390-91 (1997) (disbarring attorney who embezzled client\u2019s money and lied to client regarding settlement proceeds for several months).\nViolations by Jackson\nAlthough Respondent Jackson\u2019s violations in this case were less numerous, they are no less serious. Jackson violated Rule 16-116(D) by failing to take steps to protect Complainants\u2019 interests.\nPursuant to Rule 16-116(D), \u201cUpon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client\u2019s interests . . . . \u201d An attorney has an obligation to protect the interests of his clients upon his withdrawal from their cases. See In re Roth, 105 N.M. 255, 255, 731 P.2d 951, 951 (1987) (suspending attorney indefinitely after attorney failed to complete cases, protect interests of former clients, or refund fees); In re Tapia, 110 N.M. 693, 694-95, 799 P.2d 129, 130-31 (1990) (extending attorney\u2019s suspension because of, inter alia, numerous violations of Rule 16-116(D)). We have disciplined attorneys in the past for conduct similar to Jackson\u2019s in this case. See In re Fandey, 118 N.M. 590, 591-94, 884 P.2d 481, 482-85 (1994) (an attorney who failed to pursue representation of clients and who abandoned his office and all forms of communication with his clients was subject to a one-year suspension).\nJackson\u2019s principal violation was that he failed to formally withdraw as counsel of record for Complainants after legal representation was transferred to Owen. His failure to withdraw meant that he remained counsel of record in Complainants\u2019 lawsuit. Therefore, he continued to receive notices and orders from the court concerning the lawsuit, and he continued to receive correspondence and pleadings from opposing counsel. After receiving these communications, it should have been apparent to Jackson that he was still counsel of record in the case and had obligations consistent with that role. Jackson\u2019s failure to properly withdraw from the case caused confusion for opposing counsel and Complainants. Although we recognize that there were mitigating factors such as Jackson\u2019s personal and emotional problems, filing a withdrawal of counsel is not burdensome.\nDISCIPLINE\nBoth Jackson and Owen conducted themselves unprofessionally. The practice of law is a privilege and carries with it substantial responsibility. Respondents have not taken this responsibility seriously. While we do not condone Jackson\u2019s conduct, he \u201chas acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct and expressed remorse for his conduct.\u201d For that reason, we choose to mitigate his discipline and afford him an opportunity to prove himself during a period of supervised probation.\nOwen, by contrast, has refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her actions. Additionally, she has a prior disciplinary record. She failed to comply with the terms of our November 15, 2012, order. On January 29, 2013, disciplinary counsel filed a motion for an order to show cause noting that Owen had failed to submit names of potential supervising attorneys and failed to make any payments as ordered despite two requests from disciplinary counsel. On February 11, 2013, we granted disciplinary counsel\u2019s motion and issued an order requiring Owen to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Owen was warned that her failure to file a timely response could result in the issuance of a bench warrant for her arrest. Owen failed to comply with this order.\nA second order to show cause was issued on March 29, 2013, revoking the deferral of Owen\u2019s suspension and immediately suspending her from the practice of law. Owen was also commanded to appear before this Court on April 24, 2013. Owen failed to appear at this hearing. Therefore, we issued an order on April 24, 2013, permanently disbarring her from the practice of law.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we publically censure Respondents for their misconduct and confirm our previous orders imposing the disciplinary sanctions summarized in this Opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nRICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice\nWE CONCUR:\nPETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice\nEDWARD L. CH\u00c1VEZ, Justice\nCHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice\nBARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice", "type": "majority", "author": "BOSSON, Justice" } ], "attorneys": [ "William D. Slease, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jane Gagne, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Albuquerque, NM for Disciplinary Board", "Maria E. Owen Albuquerque, NM Respondent Pro Se", "Alain Jackson Albuquerque, NM Respondent Pro Se" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2013-NMSC-035\nFiling Date: June 27, 2013\nDocket No. 33,843\nIN THE MATTER OF MARIA E. OWEN, ESQUIRE An Attorney Suspended from the Practice of Law in the State of New Mexico and IN THE MATTER OF ALAIN JACKSON, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico\nDocket No. 33,844\nWilliam D. Slease, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jane Gagne, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Albuquerque, NM for Disciplinary Board\nMaria E. Owen Albuquerque, NM Respondent Pro Se\nAlain Jackson Albuquerque, NM Respondent Pro Se" }, "file_name": "0471-01", "first_page_order": 487, "last_page_order": 493 }