| Description: |
Santiago E. Juarez (WSBA No. 5686, admitted 1974), of New Mexico, has been suspended for 18 months by order of the Supreme Court effective June 14, 2001, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his failure to diligently represent a client, failure to comply with duties on suspension, and misrepresentations regarding a payment plan from 1993 through 1995. For further information, please see the Court’s opinion filed June 14, 2001.
Matter 1: In October 1993, Mr. Juarez began representing a client in a criminal appeal. Due to a delay in filing of the transcripts, Mr. Juarez did not file the client’s opening brief within the time set by the court. Between June 14, 1994 and March 1, 1995, Mr. Juarez failed to file the client’s opening brief. Mr. Juarez requested several extensions, many of which were filed after the due date of the brief. During this time, the court twice threatened to dismiss the client’s appeal.
By March 1995, Mr. Juarez’s license had been suspended, so he sent the client’s file to a lawyer in California, but did not notify the court of his suspension. When the court learned of the suspension, it appointed the Washington Appellate Defenders Association (WADA) to represent the client. WADA contacted Mr. Juarez for the file and transcripts, but did not receive them. After filing a motion to compel the transfer of the transcripts and for sanctions, Mr. Juarez arranged for the California lawyer to deliver the files and transcripts. The files were in disarray and the court ordered a $150 sanction. Mr. Juarez did not pay the sanction prior to WADA’s dissolution.
In October 1994, the Supreme Court decided a case that materially affected Mr. Juarez’s client’s conviction; however, Mr. Juarez took no action on this case. In August 1995, the client’s family retained new counsel, who negotiated with the prosecutor based on the October 1994 Supreme Court decision. The client pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, the conspiracy charge was dismissed, and the client was released from prison.
Matter 2: In December 1994, Mr. Juarez stipulated to a suspension. The Supreme Court approved the stipulation on February 15, 1995. RLD 8.3 requires that within 25 days of the effective date of the suspension, lawyers file an affidavit stating to clients and courts that they have fully complied with the rules requiring notice of their suspension. Mr. Juarez failed to file this affidavit within the required 25 days.
Matter 3: The February 1995 suspension order contained a condition on Mr. Juarez’s reinstatement. The Court required Mr. Juarez to enter a payment plan with the WSBA to reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) for payment made to one of Mr. Juarez’s clients. On February 26, 1996, Mr. Juarez paid $706.54 and asked that his license be reinstated after he paid the $1,000 balance. On February 27, Mr. Juarez agreed in writing to pay the balance on or before March 27. The agreement stated that failure to comply with the terms of the agreement would be "evidence of dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation in connection with his reinstatement and that such conduct may subject him to disciplinary action pursuant to RLD 1.8(f)."
Later, during a phone call with Disciplinary Counsel, Mr. Juarez agreed to send his payment by April 8; however, his license had been reinstated on March 6. Mr. Juarez failed to make the promised payment until May 10, 1996, in part based on financial restraints.
In the interim, the WSBA initiated a grievance against Mr. Juarez based on his failure to pay. Mr. Juarez did not promptly respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s request for a response to the grievance. Mr. Juarez misrepresented his ability to pay the $1,000 balance, both in the original agreement and in his oral promise to pay by April 8, 1996.
Mr. Juarez’s conduct violated RPCs 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to protect clients’ interests upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from representation; and RLDs 8.3, requiring suspended lawyers to file an affidavit of compliance within 25 days of the effective date of suspension; 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to promptly comply with requests for information in disciplinary investigations; 8.1(a)(4), requiring suspended lawyers to provide files to clients or substituted counsel, upon request; and 8.1(a)(2), requiring lawyers to notify the court of their suspension and inability to act.
Maureen Devlin and Christine Gray represented the Bar Association at hearing, and Jonathan Burke, on appeal. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Juarez. The hearing officer was Kelby D. Fletcher.
|