{ "id": 716954, "name": "In the Matter of Kevin J. HANRATTY, An Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico", "name_abbreviation": "In re Hanratty", "decision_date": "1990-08-22", "docket_number": "No. 19315", "first_page": "354", "last_page": "356", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "110 N.M. 354" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "796 P.2d 247" } ], "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": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 423, "char_count": 7627, "ocr_confidence": 0.802, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.3783326749937931 }, "sha256": "51230bd8843efd2f26600cd8c14d830b5c9ca1e0c0181548e12ed2b58c1c8a8c", "simhash": "1:67e2e1b07da2ce08", "word_count": 1237 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:30.469339+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DAN SOSA, Jr. Chief Justice", "RICHARD E. RANSOM Justice", "JOSEPH F. BACA Justice", "SETH D. MONTGOMERY Justice", "KENNETH B. WILSON Justice" ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of Kevin J. HANRATTY, An Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPER CURIAM.\nThis matter is before the court following disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to the Rules Governing Discipline, SCRA 1986, 17-101 through 17-316 (Repl. Pamp.1988 & Cum.Supp.1990), wherein attorney Kevin J. Hanratty, in accordance with an agreement for discipline by consent, admitted to various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, SCRA 1986, 16-101 through 16-805 (Repl.Pamp.1988 & Cum.Supp.1990). Pursuant to Rule 17-211(B)(1)(a), we approve and adopt the Disciplinary Board\u2019s acceptance of the conditional agreement for discipline by consent.\nThe specification of charges contained two separate counts in connection with two unrelated bankruptcy matters. Count I involved Hanratty\u2019s representation of Wade and Anna Mae White. Hanratty admitted to violations of Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104(A) and (B) and did not contest allegations that his conduct was violative of 16-804(D). He also consented to his suspension from the practice of law for a definite period of six months on condition that suspension be deferred pursuant to Rule 17-206(B)(1) under certain terms and conditions.\nThe facts that Hanratty admitted, which are the basis for the conditional agreement regarding count I, commenced when the Whites retained him in December 1987 to represent them in a bankruptcy. The clients\u2019 primary objective was to keep their house and land in Artesia, New Mexico. Valley Federal Savings Bank (Valley) had a lien on the home and the property. Han-ratty filed a \u201cChapter 7 Voluntary Debtor\u2019s Petition\u201d on behalf of the Whites in December 1987. During 1988 he filed a \u201cDebtor\u2019s Conversion of Chapter 7 Case to Chapter 11\u201d for his clients, who had not understood that operating their apartments as a business should have been considered in the decision of whether to file under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. A corresponding order was entered that same month.\nIn retrospect, it is apparent, and Hanratty agrees, that the clients did not understand that if the Chapter 11 bankruptcy were converted back to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they had a great risk of foreclosure against their home if their payments were not kept current during the Chapter 11. This misunderstanding was relevant to and caused by the poor communication between the Whites and Hanratty.\nWhile their bankruptcy was in Chapter 11, arrears in the notes regarding the Whites\u2019 home and surrounding property accrued without Hanratty\u2019s knowledge. Also during this period, Valley, as a primary creditor in the Whites\u2019 bankruptcy, unsuccessfully sought to communicate with Han-ratty about various aspects of the case, including the non-payments on the Whites\u2019 home. In response to Hanratty\u2019s filing of reaffirmation, Valley\u2019s counsel told him the Whites had not been making their house payments. Hanratty should have communicated directly with his clients about the status of their payments while their bankruptcy was in Chapter 11.\nThe Whites discharged Hanratty upon receiving notice of foreclosure from Valley, and they subsequently retained attorney Jud Cooper. Upon entering his appearance in April 1989, Cooper attempted to undo a lift of automatic stay that had been ordered. Ultimately, the Whites decided to give up their fight to save their home.\nThe significance of his unavailability to his clients, at telephonic hearings regarding various motions, and to creditor Valley during the course of the bankruptcy is not disputed by Hanratty, who also agrees that he should have associated with an experienced and competent bankruptcy attorney with regard to conversion of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.\nCount II of the charges involved Hanratty\u2019s representation of Mike and Sandra Hurst. Hanratty admitted to violations of Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104(A) and he did not contest a violation of 16-804(D). He also consented to his suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months in addition to the time cited in count I, on condition that suspension also be deferred pursuant to Rule 17-206(B)(1) under certain terms and conditions.\nThe facts that Hanratty admitted, which are the basis for the conditional agreement as regards count II, began when the Hursts retained him early in 1989 to represent them in bankruptcy. Hanratty filed a \u201cVoluntary Chapter 11 Petition\u201d on behalf of the Hursts in April 1988. Communication problems developed between him and his clients and they ultimately discharged him. Hanratty had failed to file a reorganization plan on behalf of the Hursts, which they did not even realize until their subsequent counsel, Jud Cooper, informed them. New counsel converted the case to a Chapter 7. While it is possible that Han-ratty\u2019s original decision to file under Chapter 11 was appropriate, he later should have converted to Chapter 7, which he did not do because of a fee dispute with his clients.\nWe agree that Hanratty\u2019s conduct in these two bankruptcy cases was violative of Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104(A) and (B), and 16-804(D). We also note Hanratty\u2019s offer to assist the Whites and Hursts in their payments to subsequent counsel and his willingness to seek knowledge and assistance in the area of bankruptcy law.\nThe Rules of Professional Conduct do not prevent lawyers from exploring areas of law that are new to them. That the adventurous spirit would be pursued without the assistance of experienced and competent counsel, however, is unwise for attorneys and unfortunate for their clients. There is no evidence that greed and dishonesty were factors in Hanratty\u2019s decision-making process in these matters. The evidence before us does support the premise that he was not competent in the complicated area of bankruptcy law. Hanratty could have rectified this problem without the involvement of the Disciplinary Board and this court if he only had sought help from his professional peers.\nIt is ordered that Kevin J. Hanratty be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to SCRA 1986, 17-206(A)(2), for a total period of one year but that such suspension be deferred pursuant to SCRA 1986, 17-206(B)(1), under the following terms and conditions:\na) That he be placed on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of Paul Snead, Esq.;\nb) That he shall pay his former clients, Wade and Anna Mae White, $2,500.00 toward attorney fees owed to their second lawyer and that full payment will occur by January 15, 1991;\nc) That he shall pay his former clients, Mike and Sandra Hurst, $1,031.09 toward attorney fees owed to their second lawyer and that full payment will occur by January 15, 1991;\nd) That he shall not violate any of the Rules of Professional Conduct during his probation period;\ne) That he shall give his full cooperation and assistance to the disciplinary authorities pursuant to SCRA 1986, 16-803(D); and,\nf) That he shall take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination during his probationary period if the examination is offered. If it is not offered during probation, he will register for the next scheduled exam.\nCosts in the amount of $364.77 are assessed against Hanratty and should be paid to the Disciplinary Board no later than October 15, 1990.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDAN SOSA, Jr. Chief Justice\nRICHARD E. RANSOM Justice\nJOSEPH F. BACA Justice\nSETH D. MONTGOMERY Justice\nKENNETH B. WILSON Justice", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM." } ], "attorneys": [ "Virginia L. Ferrar\u00e1, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Albuquerque, for Disciplinary Bd.", "Kevin J. Hanratty, Artesia, pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "796 P.2d 247\nIn the Matter of Kevin J. HANRATTY, An Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico.\nNo. 19315.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 22, 1990.\nVirginia L. Ferrar\u00e1, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Albuquerque, for Disciplinary Bd.\nKevin J. Hanratty, Artesia, pro se." }, "file_name": "0354-01", "first_page_order": 382, "last_page_order": 384 }