 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Romero3/15/2001
This matter came before the Court upon the recommendation of the disciplinary board to accept a conditional agreement not to contest and consent to discipline tendered by respondent, Annabelle M. Romero, pursuant to Rule 17-211 NMRA 2001 of the Rules Governing Discipline. Under that agreement, respondent declared her intention not to contest allegations that she violated Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104, 16-116(D), 16-302, 16-801(B), 16-803(D), 16-804(C), 16-804(D), and 16-804(H) NMRA 2001 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We adopt the disciplinary board's recommendation and impose the indefinite suspension and conditions of reinstatement provided for in the agreement.
The charges of professional misconduct arose from respondent's abandonment of six clients and her failure to respond to three complaints filed with the disciplinary board. The charges were deemed admitted pursuant to Rules 17-309(C)(2) and 17-310(C) NMRA 2001. A hearing committee of the disciplinary board convened a hearing at which the sole issue to be determined was the nature of the committee's recommendation of discipline after consideration of any facts in aggravation or mitigation. Respondent appeared at the hearing and indicated that she did not wish to contest the charges and that she would consent to discipline pursuant to Rule 17-211.
According to the uncontested facts alleged in the specification of charges, respondent was retained to represent six different clients regarding their respective personal injury claims between 1994 and 1998. In her representation of three of those clients, respondent filed civil actions that were subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute or respond to discovery requests. In her representation of the other three clients, there is no record of any civil action being filed.
In each of these cases, respondent stopped communicating with her clients and failed to respond to requests for information. Despite repeated requests, respondent also failed to return her clients' files. In some cases, respondent misrepresented to her clients or to their health care providers that their cases remained pending when, in fact, they already had been dismissed by the courts or never were filed within the period allowed under the statute of limitations.
Respondent's misconduct in these matters was brought to the attention of the disciplinary board in complaints filed by one of the clients, the daughter of one of the clients, and an attorney representing a doctor who provided health care to two of the other clients. The investigation of these complaints revealed similar misconduct in respondent's representation of two of the other clients.
Respondent acknowledged receipt of two of the complaints and requested a brief extension of time in which to respond to them, which was granted by the office of disciplinary counsel. Nevertheless, respondent failed to provide any substantive response to any of the complaints filed against her. After receiving no response to its inquiries, the office of disciplinary counsel served respondent with the specification of charges by mailing a copy to her address of record in accordance with Rule 17-309(D). The office of disciplinary counsel also confirmed respondent's mailing address in a telephone conversation with her and sent a second copy of the specification of charges to her in response to that conversation. Nevertheless, respondent failed to answer the charges. Accordingly, the office of disciplinary counsel filed a motion to deem the charges admitted, which was granted by the hearing committee after respondent failed to respond to the motion. Not until the date of the hearing on the hearing committee's recom
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|