A.Discipline in another jurisdiction. Upon being disciplined, summarily suspended, transferred to inactive status, or suspended due to incompetency, incapacity, or disability, or resigning during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding in another jurisdiction, a lawyer admitted to practice in this state shall immediately inform disciplinary counsel of this state. Upon receipt of such notification, disciplinary counsel shall obtain a certificate of the disciplinary order, suspension, transfer, or resignation from the other jurisdiction and may file it with the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Court along with a motion to impose reciprocal discipline.B.Order of the Supreme Court. Upon receipt of a certificate that an attorney admitted to practice in this state has been disciplined, summarily suspended, transferred to disability inactive status, or suspended due to incompetency, incapacity, or disability, or resigned during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding in another jurisdiction, and a motion by disciplinary counsel, the Supreme Court may enter an order imposing the identical discipline or, in its discretion, may(1) modify the discipline upon motion of the respondent-attorney or disciplinary counsel in accordance with Paragraph D of this rule; or(2) suspend the attorney pending investigation and the imposition of final discipline in accordance with these rules.C.Stay of discipline. In the event the discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed there, the entry of an order under the provisions of Paragraph B of this rule may be deferred until such stay expires.D.Modification of discipline. At the time the motion for discipline is filed or in response to the motion, the Disciplinary Board or the respondent-attorney may move the Supreme Court for an order modifying the reciprocal discipline upon the ground that upon the face of the record upon which the discipline is predicated, it clearly appears(1) the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process;(2) there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Supreme Court could not accept as final the conclusion on that subject;(3) the imposition of the same discipline by the Supreme Court would result in grave injustice; or(4) the misconduct established has been held by the Supreme Court to warrant substantially different or greater discipline.E.Suspension. In the event the Supreme Court suspends the attorney who has been disciplined, summarily suspended, transferred to disability inactive status, or suspended due to incompetency, incapacity, or disability, or who has resigned during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding in another jurisdiction pending imposition of final discipline, under the provisions of Paragraph B of this rule, the Court shall issue an order requiring the attorney to show cause why the identical or other discipline should not be imposed in this jurisdiction. The attorney's response to the order to show cause shall be limited to the above-enumerated criteria as reflected in the record of the proceeding resulting in the imposition of discipline in the foreign jurisdiction.F.Evidence of misconduct. In all other respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this state.G.Reinstatement. Except in the case of disbarment, in the event the Supreme Court imposes discipline upon an attorney or places an attorney on disability inactive status solely under the terms of this rule, upon proof by the attorney of reinstatement to practice in the other jurisdiction that led to reciprocal discipline or disability inactive status in this jurisdiction, the attorney may petition the Supreme Court to be reinstated to practice. The attorney shall file with the petition a certified copy of all opinions and orders reinstating the attorney to practice in the other jurisdiction, and serve a copy of the petition and supporting documents upon disciplinary counsel. The attorney will automatically be reinstated by order of the Supreme Court fourteen (14) days after service of the petition upon disciplinary counsel unless, prior to the expiration of such time, disciplinary counsel has filed with the Supreme Court written objections. If objections are filed, the application shall be referred to the Disciplinary Board which shall proceed to handle the matter under Rule 17-214(E) NMRA. In accordance with Rule 17-214(A) NMRA, an attorney who has been reciprocally disbarred may not apply for reinstatement regardless of whether the jurisdiction that led to the reciprocal disbarment readmits the attorney. N.M. R. Gov. Disc. 17-210
As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-008, effective 4/5/2012; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 15-8300-022, effective 12/31/2015; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-009, effective 12/31/2018. ANNOTATIONS The 2018 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-009, effective December 31, 2018, provided the reinstatement process for an attorney who has received reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction after being disciplined in another jurisdiction, and made certain technical language changes; added Paragraph G. The 2015 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 15-8300-022, effective December 31, 2015, authorized the Supreme Court to modify the reciprocal discipline for an attorney that has been disciplined in another jurisdiction and amended the deadlines for the filing of a motion to modify reciprocal discipline; added new Subparagraph B(1) and designated the remainder of the paragraph as Subparagraph B(2); in Paragraph D, added "At the time the motion for discipline is filed or in response to the motion", and after "Supreme Court", deleted "within thirty (30) days after the entry of an order imposing reciprocal discipline pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph B of this rule". The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-008, effective April 5, 2012, required an attorney who has been disciplined, suspended, transferred to inactive status or who has resigned during a disciplinary action in another state to inform disciplinary counsel in New Mexico; authorized disciplinary counsel to seek reciprocal discipline in New Mexico; added a new Paragraph A; in Paragraph B, after "in this state has been disciplined", added the language preceding "in another jurisdiction" and after "in another jurisdiction" added "and a motion by disciplinary counsel"; and in Paragraph E, in the first sentence, after "Supreme Court suspends the attorney" added "who has been", after "attorney who has been disciplined", added the language before "in another jurisdiction", and after "Paragraph", changed "A" to "B". Federal court system is "foreign jurisdiction". - The federal court system is a "foreign jurisdiction" within the meaning of this rule. In re Allred, 1989-NMSC-053, 108 N.M. 666, 777 P.2d 905. No automatic disbarment for federal disbarment. - Because the privilege of practicing before a federal court generally is contingent solely upon one's admission to a state bar and can be summarily withdrawn for violations of the federal court's procedural rules, New Mexico will not automatically impose the sanction of disbarment when one is disbarred from practice in a federal court. In re Roberts-Hohl, 1994-NMSC-004, 116 N.M. 700, 866 P.2d 1167. Public censure and suspension appropriate. - Public censure and a period of supervised probation was the appropriate sanction in the case of an attorney who had been disbarred from practice before a federal court, where there was no claim by the attorney's client that he was harmed, nor any statement by the federal court that the attorney's conduct violated any ethical rules. In re Allred, 1989-NMSC-053, 108 N.M. 666, 777 P.2d 905. Disbarment held to be warranted. - It was appropriate to impose discipline identical to that imposed by the State of Texas, where defendant was originally suspended by a New Mexico court, yet failed or refused to abide by the orders of the court that he comply with the notice requirements, failed to appear before court and failed to show cause why discipline identical to that imposed in Texas should not be imposed here. In re Deutsch, 1992-NMSC-034, 113 N.M. 711, 832 P.2d 402). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys at Law § 81. Disbarment or suspension of attorney in one state as affecting right to continue practice in another state, 81 A.L.R.3d 1281. 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client §§ 120, 121.