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

• Two attorneys, Maria E. Owen and Alain Jackson, were involved in disciplinary proceedings due to their mishandling of a business lease dispute case. Owen initially represented the complainants in a landlord-tenant lease dispute and two other matters. On May 17, 2010, Owen transferred the representation of the complainants in the lease dispute to Jackson, with all parties consenting to the transfer. Jackson filed a lawsuit on behalf of the complainants but subsequently failed to attend to the lawsuit properly due to personal issues. The complainants rehired Owen after firing Jackson for his inattentiveness. However, both attorneys failed to properly manage the case, leading to the complainants' eviction from their daycare business premises and incurring additional legal fees to rectify the situation (paras 3-12).

Procedural History

• 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.
• November 15, 2012: The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued an order adopting the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board with modifications, including suspension of both respondents for eighteen months, deferred with terms and conditions, and ordering a public censure (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Disciplinary Board: Argued that attorneys Maria E. Owen and Alain Jackson violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct due to their mishandling of a business lease dispute, leading to the complainants' eviction from their daycare business premises and incurring additional legal fees (paras 1-12).
• Maria E. Owen (Respondent Pro Se): [Not applicable or not found]
• Alain Jackson (Respondent Pro Se): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the respondents violated Rule 16-101 NMRA by failing to provide competent representation to their clients.
• Whether Owen violated Rule 16-103 NMRA by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the clients.
• Whether Owen violated Rule 16-104(A)(2) and (3) NMRA by failing to consult with the clients regarding the objectives and to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of the matter.
• Whether Owen violated Rule 16-302 NMRA by failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
• Whether Jackson violated Rule 16-116(D) NMRA by failing to take steps to protect the client’s interests upon termination of representation (paras 13-23).

Disposition

• Both respondents were publicly censured for their misconduct.
• Both respondents were suspended for eighteen months, deferred with terms and conditions, including supervision by a licensed attorney and payment of restitution to complainants.
• Both respondents were ordered to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE).
• Owen was permanently disbarred from the practice of law for failing to comply with the court's orders and for her prior disciplinary record (paras 25-27).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per Justice Richard C. Bosson, found that both respondents violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. The court highlighted the respondents' lack of competence, diligence, and thoroughness in handling the complainants' case, which directly harmed the clients and undermined public confidence in the legal profession. The court noted Owen's failure to act with diligence, to communicate adequately with the clients, and her misrepresentation of the case status to the clients. Jackson's failure to formally withdraw as counsel of record, causing confusion and failing to protect the clients' interests, was also noted. The court considered Jackson's acknowledgment of wrongful conduct and expressed remorse, mitigating his discipline to a period of supervised probation. In contrast, Owen's refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her actions and her prior disciplinary record led to her permanent disbarment (paras 13-27).