N.M. R. Prof'l. Cond. 16-802
N.M. R. Prof'l. Cond. 16-802
Committee commentary. -
[1] Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
[2] When a lawyer seeks judicial office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity.
[3] To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-29, effective November 3, 2008.]
.ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. - The old ABA Comment was replaced by the 2008 committee commentary. Offensive remarks about judicial officials and bar members. - Where, in three separate incidents while respondent was representing clients in domestic matters, respondent made offensive remarks referring to a fellow bar member as a "dumb bitch", a domestic violence commissioner as a "freak show", opposing counsel as "eternal lying scum", a retired judge as a "drunken idiot on the bench" and as having been "bought off", and the opposing party as a "dingbat" and implied that the judge and opposing counsel had an impermissible relationship; respondent's conduct increased acrimony and fueled the adversarial climate that adversely impacted the progress of the litigation, caused unnecessary additional expense, and was intended to intimidate and improperly influence those who stood in respondent's way; and respondent had substantial experience in the practice of law, had committed multiple prior offenses that displayed a pattern of misconduct, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of respondent's conduct, and had received prior disciplinary sanctions, suspension was an appropriate sanction which the court deferred because respondent provided medical evidence demonstrating that respondent's prior outbursts were likely caused by a long-standing but untreated bipolar condition and that the treatment respondent was receiving would prevent the misconduct from recurring. In re Ortiz, 2013-NMSC-027. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - Attorney's criticism of judicial acts as ground of disciplinary action, 12 A.L.R.3d 1408. Election campaign activities as ground for disciplining attorney, 26 A.L.R.4th 170.