N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-201
Any attorney regularly admitted to practice law in this state, any attorney specially admitted to practice by a court of this state or any individual admitted to practice as an attorney in any other jurisdiction who engages in the practice of law within this state as house counsel to corporations or other entities, as counsel for governmental agencies or otherwise is subject to the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Board hereinafter established.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to deny to any other court such powers as are necessary for that court to maintain control over proceedings conducted before it, such as the power of contempt, nor to prohibit local bar associations from censuring, suspending or expelling their members from membership in their associations.
N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-201
Committee commentary. -The Supreme Court has the inherent power and the duty to determine what constitutes the practice of law. It also has the power and duty to determine grounds for discipline of lawyers and to discipline a lawyer who violates the rules of the Supreme Court. The purpose of Rule 17-201 NMRA is to establish that the Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Board have exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction over any attorney who engages in the practice of law within the state with respect to enforcement of its rules governing acts and omissions that may constitute grounds for discipline. Disciplinary jurisdiction does not authorize or permit the unauthorized practice of law by any person. Under this rule, an attorney who is not licensed to practice in this state but engages in the practice of law and commits acts or omissions that may constitute grounds for discipline is subject to the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Board. As an example, an attorney who has engaged in the practice of law within the state, whether admitted to practice or admitted as an attorney in any other jurisdiction, and who violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other Supreme Court Rules could be disciplined by the Supreme Court or the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 17-206 NMRA.
.For statutory provisions concerning the practice of law, see 36-2-1 to 36-2-40 NMSA 1978. Suspension of an attorney from practicing before the workers' compensation administration. - Where the director of the worker's compensation administration suspended an attorney from practicing before the workers' compensation administration, the suspension did not infringe upon the exclusive authority of the supreme court to discipline attorneys because the workers' compensation administration took no action against the attorney's status as an attorney as such. Chavez v. N.M. Workers' Comp. Admin., 2012-NMCA-060, 280 P.3d 927. Sanction of an attorney exceeded the workers' compensation administration's authority. - Where a stipulated order suspending an attorney from practicing before the workers' compensation administration prohibited the attorney from generating any fees associated with worker's compensation matters, the prohibition exceeded the workers' compensation administration's authority to control proceedings before it and infringed upon the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction to discipline attorneys. Chavez v. N.M. Workers' Comp. Admin., 2012-NMCA-060, 280 P.3d 927. No authority to take disciplinary action. - The New Mexico state racing commission does not have the authority to prohibit an attorney from representing a client before the commission in adjudicatory proceedings or public hearings on the basis of alleged misconduct. The supreme court has the exclusive authority to discipline lawyers. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-61. Avoidance of sanctions. - One cannot avoid disciplinary sanctions simply by concealing himself within or leaving the jurisdiction and failing to notify the clerk of a change in address. In re Nails, 1987-NMSC-036, 105 N.M. 639, 735 P.2d 1145. In disbarment proceeding, respondent is entitled to procedural due process guaranteed by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. In re Nelson, 1968-NMSC-028, 78 N.M. 739, 437 P.2d 1008. Absence of intention to do wrong not enough. - Maintenance of high standards of professional conduct requires more of a member of the bar than mere absence of intention to do wrong. In re Moyer, 1966-NMSC-267, 77 N.M. 253, 421 P.2d 781. Law reviews. - For comment, "The Clark Report and the Revised New Mexico Disciplinary Procedures," see 2 N.M.L. Rev. 292 (1972). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys at Law §§ 28, 29. 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client §§ 59 to 61.