Summary
The New Mexico Supreme Court disciplined Ronald D. Mikus for failing to supplement his bar admission application after being indicted and for related dishonest conduct. The Court held that pre-admission misconduct may support attorney discipline and suspended Mikus from practicing law during his criminal probation, subject to additional conditions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an attorney may be disciplined for misconduct committed before admission to the bar but discovered after admission.
- Whether Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to supplement his bar application with information concerning his criminal indictment.
- Whether suspension from the practice of law while Respondent served his criminal probation was an appropriate sanction.
- Whether the hearing committee's findings that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct were supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- An attorney may be disciplined for acts committed before admission to the bar when those acts are not discovered until after admission.
- A bar applicant has an affirmative and continuing duty to disclose new information bearing on qualification or fitness, and knowingly failing to supplement the application with a criminal indictment violates the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning correction of misapprehensions, dishonesty or misrepresentation, and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness.
- Absent exceptional and very limited circumstances, an attorney serving probation for serious crimes may not practice law while on probation; suspension was appropriate here.
Key quotations
“we hold that an attorney may be disciplined for acts committed prior to admission but not discovered until after admission.” (¶ 13)
“applicants to the State Bar of New Mexico are under an affirmative duty to update their bar applications to inform the Board of Bar Examiners of any occurrence or new information that might bear upon their qualifications or fitness to practice law.” (¶ 7)
“absent exceptional and very limited circumstances, attorneys on probation for serious crimes will not be permitted to practice law while on probation.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Before admission to the New Mexico bar, Ronald D. Mikus was involved in an altercation with a former girlfriend after they traveled from Mexico with drugs in their vehicle, and the girlfriend suffered serious injuries. After a grand jury investigation, Mikus was indicted for aggravated battery against a household member and false imprisonment, but he did not supplement his pending bar application with the indictment despite the application's continuing-disclosure requirement. He was admitted to the bar, convicted of both felonies, and placed on a three-year deferred sentence with supervised probation.
Procedural history
Before applying for admission to the New Mexico bar, Respondent engaged in conduct that led to felony charges for aggravated battery against a household member and false imprisonment. He failed to disclose the matter on his bar application or supplement the application after his indictment, was admitted to the bar, and was later convicted and placed on supervised probation. The hearing committee found violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Board recommended suspension, and the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation with additional conditions.
Remand instructions
No remand. Respondent was suspended until January 23, 2007, required to comply with the terms of his criminal probation, enter a two-year monitoring agreement after probation, participate in twelve-step meetings or an equivalent program, submit to random alcohol screening, pass the ethics portion of the multistate bar examination before reinstatement to probationary practice, comply with Rule 17-212 NMRA 2006, and pay assessed costs.