 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Neal11/26/2003
ld have aided him in the determination of the reasonableness of the charges for confinement and the amount of child support to be paid. This Court also noted that defendant failed to show that he attempted to obtain leave to attend the hearing.
The requirements of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act are no different in an attorney discipline case. In re Bashor, 16 Wash. 168, 132 P.2d 1027 (1943), is an attorney discipline case in which lawyer Bashor did not join the military until after his case had been heard by the trial committee and the board of governors. The stay request was filed in the Supreme Court, but the lawyer, who was represented by counsel, also filed his brief on the merits. The Court determined that Bashor's defense was not materially affected by his military service. Bashor was disbarred.
In this case, respondent defaulted on answering the second amended specification of charges, and the charges were deemed admitted before the November 12, 2002, hearing. During that hearing, respondent was specifically informed of the continued hearing date of December 11, 2002, and that he could file pleadings prior to that date. Respondent neither filed a motion to set aside the order deeming allegations admitted nor attended the hearing on December 11, 2002. Because he was not on active duty at the time of that hearing, his military service did not affect his defense of these charges in any way. The merits of the matter were decided with notice to respondent and without any effort on his part to defend himself. Nor is it likely respondent's presence would change the result in this matter. Respondent made false statements to courts, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law with disciplinary charges pending, and tested positive for illegal drugs while on probation. He had been suspended from the practice of law since May 2002, without making any demonstrable effort to alter his conduct.
The hearing committee recommended that respondent be disbarred and not be permitted to work for any attorney until such time as he has been reinstated. The disciplinary board panel removed that restriction on employment from its recommendation of disbarrment and also recommended that respondent's liability insurer be notified. As has been discussed with the Court previously, there is no confirmable way to determine the existence or non-existence of professional liability insurance. Disciplinary counsel asked this Court to remove that condition from its order and further asked this Court to reinstate the prohibition against respondent working for a lawyer while disbarred. This Court decided to remove the requirement to notify respondent's professional liability insurer of his disbarrment but declined to restrict respondent's law-related employment at this time. As our order of disbarrment reflects, however, if respondent violates any of the terms and conditions imposed and disciplinary counsel brings it to our attention pursuant to Rule 17-206(G), additional sanctions may be imposed, including restrictions on his law-related employment.
Now, therefore, it is ordered that Drew Alan Neal hereby is disbarred from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 17-206(A)(1) NMRA 2003 for a minimum period of three (3) years;
It is further ordered that respondent shall comply with all requirements of Rule 17-212 NMRA 2003 prior to being permitted to apply for reinstatement;
It is further ordered that respondent shall promptly respond to all pending and future disciplinary complaints filed against him prior to being permitted to apply for reinstatement;
It is further ordered that, prior to the filing any motion for permission to apply fo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|