AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Attorney Jason S. Montclare accepted a flat fee in the form of real property from a client, Wolfgang Bohm, for legal services related to a child support enforcement action. Before fully earning the fee, Montclare transferred a half interest in the property to his legal assistant, making it impossible to return the unearned portion upon his discharge by Bohm. Montclare's actions led to disciplinary proceedings against him for violating various Rules of Professional Conduct.

Procedural History

• Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Montclare: Montclare was found to have violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct by the Hearing Committee of the Disciplinary Board, which recommended a six-month suspension and one year of supervised probation, along with restitution to Bohm (paras 4-6).
• Disciplinary Board Panel: Approved the Hearing Committee's findings and recommendations without oral argument (para 6).
• Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico: Reviewed the Panel's decision, held the matter in abeyance subject to Montclare commencing fee arbitration with Bohm and making arrangements to clear title to the property. Montclare was later issued a public censure and a six-month suspension, deferred on the condition of resolving the property title issue (paras 7-12).

Parties' Submissions

• Montclare: Argued that disciplinary counsel had not proved he had the mental state that merited suspension and requested the case be remanded for reconsideration in light of new evidence regarding the invalidity of the property transfer (para 7).
• Disciplinary Counsel: Responded that the Panel no longer had jurisdiction after Montclare requested review by the Supreme Court and suggested resolving additional allegations by consenting to discipline (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether Montclare charged an unreasonable fee in violation of Rule 16-105(A) by accepting real property as a flat fee and transferring part of it before fully earning the fee.
• Whether Montclare acquired ownership of client property without complying with the requirements pertaining to conflicts of interest, in violation of Rule 16-108(A).
• Whether Montclare failed to hold client property separate from his own, in violation of Rule 16-115(A) and (E).
• Whether Montclare improperly split fees with a nonlawyer, in violation of Rule 16-504 NMRA.

Disposition

• Montclare received a public censure and was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension deferred on the condition that he purchase Perry’s interest in the property to return clear title to Bohm (para 12).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels writing and Justices Petra Jimenez Maes, Edward L. Chávez, Barbara J. Vigil, and Judith K. Nakamura concurring, found Montclare's actions in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court clarified that while accepting a flat fee in the form of real property is not inherently against the rules, any fee must be reasonable and refundable until fully earned. Montclare failed to properly advise his client, ensure fair transaction terms, and safeguard the property until it was earned. The Court deferred to the Hearing Committee's findings on factual matters but reviewed legal conclusions and disciplinary recommendations de novo, ultimately issuing a public censure and deferring the six-month suspension based on Montclare's compliance with conditions to resolve the property title issue (paras 13-20).