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

• Respondent Victor Marshall represented the San Juan Agricultural Water Users Association and other groups in a water rights adjudication concerning the San Juan River, initiated in 1975. Judge James J. Wechsler, retired, was appointed in 2009 to preside over the case. Marshall filed an emergency motion to disqualify Judge Wechsler, alleging bias due to Wechsler's past work for the Navajo Nation and making several unfounded statements about the judge's integrity and impartiality. The Court of Appeals denied the motion and imposed sanctions on Marshall for his baseless allegations (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals: Denied Marshall's motion to disqualify Judge Wechsler and imposed sanctions for making unfounded allegations about the judge's integrity (para 5).
• Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico: Conducted a hearing and concluded Marshall violated professional conduct rules, recommending indefinite suspension (paras 7-9).

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent: Argued that Judge Wechsler exhibited bias in favor of the Navajo Nation due to his past employment and made several allegations questioning the judge's integrity and impartiality without a factual basis (paras 2-4).
• Disciplinary Board: Contended that Marshall violated professional conduct rules by making unfounded statements about a judge's integrity and filing frivolous motions, and recommended discipline to prevent future misconduct (paras 8-9, 42-43).

Legal Issues

• Whether Marshall made statements about the integrity of a judge with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, in violation of professional conduct rules (para 2).
• Whether Marshall's conduct violated rules prohibiting the filing of frivolous motions and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (paras 34, 37).

Disposition

• Marshall was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for at least eighteen months, with conditions for reinstatement including completion of ethics credits, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and paying the costs of the disciplinary proceeding (para 48).

Reasons

• The Court held that Marshall made statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity concerning a judge's integrity, violating professional conduct rules. It clarified the standard for determining reckless disregard in such cases, emphasizing the need for an objectively reasonable factual basis for statements about a judge's integrity. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Marshall lacked such a basis for his allegations against Judge Wechsler. Marshall's actions were also found to violate rules against filing frivolous motions and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Aggravating factors, including Marshall's substantial experience in law and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, contributed to the decision for indefinite suspension (paras 11-47).