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

• Between 2012 and 2013, Emilio Jacob Chavez, Deputy District Attorney, issued at least ninety-four subpoenas without connection to any court or grand jury proceedings, primarily to cellular phone providers for investigative purposes. Donald A. Gallegos, District Attorney and Chavez's supervisor, authorized a subset of these subpoenas but was unaware of most. The subpoenas sought various records and were filed with the Eighth Judicial District Court as part of miscellaneous criminal files, without notice to the individuals whose information was being sought (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Disciplinary Board: Argued that Chavez unlawfully issued subpoenas, improperly issued subpoenas without notifying parties, and issued subpoenas that failed to follow proper form. Claimed Chavez violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Asserted that Gallegos, due to his supervisory position, was implicated primarily for the subpoenas authorized in a robbery case and for lack of oversight (para 5).
• Respondents (Chavez and Gallegos): Conducted research and concluded the issuance of investigative subpoenas was lawful. Chavez argued that his research did not reveal a clear answer to the legality of the process, and neither respondent believed they were knowingly avoiding or subverting legal obligations (paras 4, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether Chavez violated Rule 16-404(A) NMRA of the Rules of Professional Conduct by issuing investigative subpoenas unconnected to court or grand jury proceedings.
• Whether Gallegos violated Rules 16-404(A) and 16-501(C) NMRA of the Rules of Professional Conduct through authorization and lack of oversight regarding the issuance of investigative subpoenas.

Disposition

• Chavez and Gallegos were both found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Chavez violated Rule 16-404(A), and Gallegos violated Rules 16-404(A) and 16-501(C). Both respondents were given formal reprimands, deferred for one year, with the condition that the reprimands would be withdrawn if no further violations occurred during that period. The assessment of costs against the respondents was denied (paras 8, 25).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the issuance of subpoenas by Chavez, with authorization from Gallegos, was unlawful as it occurred in the absence of a pending judicial action, violating specific Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court emphasized that subpoenas must be issued only in connection with existing judicial actions and that the absence of a prohibition does not imply permission. The Court found that the respondents' actions lacked substantial purpose other than to burden third persons and violated the legal rights of individuals whose information was sought without their knowledge. The Court also noted that Gallegos, as a supervising attorney, bore responsibility for the actions of Chavez under Rule 16-501(C) due to his ratification of the subpoenas and lack of oversight. The decision to issue formal reprimands was influenced by the absence of evidence showing bad faith or intent to deceive by the respondents, their full compliance with disciplinary proceedings, and the recognition of the need for clear legal guidelines regarding the issuance of subpoenas (paras 9-25).