A Judge But Not A Lawyer

A Colorado Hearing Board has denied reinstatement to an attorney admitted in 2010 and suspended for a year and a day for misconduct in several client matters.

Petitioner resolved to strike out on her own, and she established a solo practice in 2010, which she considers her “first mistake.” In the main, her case load consisted of criminal and family law cases, but she dabbled in many different areas of substantive law in order to pay bills. She now recognizes that she was not “fully competent” to work as a solo practitioner. For instance, she said, she did not know that she was required to file motions to withdraw in domestic relations cases after divorces were finalized; as a result, she remained attorney of record for several post-dissolution matters, regardless of whether she intended to continue those representations. She also acknowledged that she was not competent to handle the Roche real estate matter, which she failed to realize was “out of her league.”

She moved from Colorado to  to New Mexico and took a job

At the Branch firm, Petitioner recalled, she began to appreciate the importance of supervision and the need to ask for help and guidance. Branch’s systems—including those for calendaring, organization, and communication management—helped illuminate, she said, the “difference between what I was doing wrong and what I do now.” But it was during Petitioner’s time at Branch that she actively avoided emails and telephone calls from her Colorado clients. She explained that when she received these communications she felt overwhelmed and decided simply to ignore them.

But the Colorado violations led to her suspension there and reciprocally in New Mexico.

After resigning from Branch, Petitioner was unemployed until July 2014, when she took a position as field tax auditor with the State of New Mexico’s Department of Workforce Solutions. A few months later she applied for a position as an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in the same department. She was hired in October 2014 and has held the position ever since.

Though the ALJ position does not require a law degree, Petitioner related how her job draws on many of the same analytic skills and ethical considerations as the practice of law. Petitioner presides over hearings involving appeals of unemployment benefit decisions. She rules on pretrial and evidentiary matters, and she issues findings of fact and legal conclusions. The position comes with oversight and accountability, and she believes she is good at her job; she testified that she was named employee of the month in July 2015. Petitioner plans to continue in her role as ALJ for the foreseeable future. “I am happy where I am,” she testified, “but that doesn’t mean I don’t want my license back.” She is aware that a law license opens doors and allows for career advancement in the state and federal systems. She also wants to regain her license for “emotional, financial, and personal reasons.”

Petitioner testified that since her suspension she has taken several classes in tax and business law at a local community college and was certified to file individual federal tax returns for others. She does not read bar periodicals or legal journals, nor does she belong to a bar association or otherwise have a mentor in the legal profession. She took one continuing legal education (“CLE”) course in 2014 and reviewed an ethics video to meet New Mexico requirements. In 2015, she says, she accumulated eleven general CLE credits and seven ethics CLE credits in Colorado, as well as thirteen-and-a-half general and four ethics credits in New Mexico. Petitioner related that she chose CLE courses that would enhance her practice of law, with a focus on ethics and business management issues. She did not offer any evidence to support her testimony.

Since moving back to New Mexico, Petitioner testified, she has taken measures to better herself through education and self-healing. Her family has a history of depression, and she has worked to take care of herself, eliminate stress, and reduce anxiety through running, meditation, yoga, faith-based healing, and helping others. She has returned to her church, where she teaches first- and second-grade catechism once a week. She volunteers with Big Brothers Big Sisters of New Mexico. For more than two years, she has met with her seven-year-old “little sister” for a few hours every other week. In 2014, she was assigned a high-school mentee through a program called Mentor 2.0, which pairs high school students with community members for encouragement and guidance. And in September 2015, she began volunteering with Wings for Life, a program that provides assistance for family members of prisoners. Through this group Petitioner has tutored children and raised funds; she recently was voted to the board of directors. Petitioner affirmed that being involved in the community is very important to her, and she plans to continue to volunteer whether or not she is reinstated.

The Hearing Board

Regrettably, considering the totality of the evidence and the testimony presented, the Hearing Board concludes that Petitioner has not proved her rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. We do not see a regeneration of her character, a turn-around in her perspective, or a notable difference in her approach to tackling difficult tasks. Petitioner appears to be thriving in her chosen profession, but we fear that removed from those environs she would be as unprepared to represent clients as she was in 2011 through 2013. For these reasons, we cannot find that she is unlikely to repeat her past misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)