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

• Daniel M. Salazar, an attorney with nearly twenty years of practice in New Mexico, focused on criminal defense and contracted with the Law Office of the Public Defender (LOPD), faced disciplinary action for multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The charges stemmed from Salazar's repeated failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically relating to the timely filing of appellate pleadings. This was not Salazar's first encounter with disciplinary proceedings, as he had previously been admonished for mismanagement of post-trial procedures. The current disciplinary action was initiated due to Salazar's failure to file notices of appeal and docketing statements in a timely manner for two clients, Jason Nowicki and Sean Godkin, which led to an investigation by the Disciplinary Board (paras 4-5, 10-14).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Disciplinary Board: Argued that Salazar violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically in the timely filing of appellate pleadings. Recommended a one-year deferred suspension with supervision on all appellate matters (para 1).
• Salazar: Contended that the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply with full force to criminal defense trial attorneys and argued, without providing legal authority, that criminal defense attorneys have some flexibility regarding filing deadlines based on case law (paras 16-18).

Legal Issues

• Whether Salazar violated Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically in the timely filing of appellate pleadings.
• Whether Salazar's interpretation of the applicability of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to criminal defense trial attorneys was justified.

Disposition

• Salazar was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for a period of no less than one year, effective thirty days from November 9, 2018. This suspension was later increased to no less than eighteen months due to Salazar's failure to comply with the suspension order and the requirements for suspended attorneys under the Rules Governing Discipline (paras 2, 33, 41).

Reasons

• The Court adopted the Disciplinary Board’s findings and conclusions with one exception and modified the Board’s recommended discipline. Salazar's history of disciplinary offenses and refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct justified his suspension. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules to protect the interests of clients and the administration of justice. Salazar's failure to file timely appellate pleadings for his clients demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure and constituted a failure to comply with the standards imposed on the legal profession. The Court disagreed with Salazar's interpretation of case law as allowing flexibility in filing deadlines and underscored that procedural rules must be followed. Salazar's noncompliance with the suspension order and failure to fulfill the requirements for suspended attorneys further justified the extension of his suspension period (paras 1-3, 20-45).