Legal Opinion
In the Matter of Michele Estrada
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided September 28, 2006No. 28,406PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
{1} This disciplinary proceeding arises from a discovery dispute and the introduction of forged evidence. It offers us the opportunity to discuss professional and ethical issues that may occur when New Mexico attorneys must confer with out-of-state counsel for corporate clients involved in litigation in New Mexico. In such situations, attorneys licensed to practice in New Mexico have an independent duty to the New Mexico judiciary to obey New Mexico’s ethical and discovery rules, regardless of the opinion of out-of-state counsel. We agree with the hearing committee that attorney…
3Cases cited16 opinions
- United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- Woodson v. Phillips Petroleum Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1985
- Briggs v. McWeenySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Golden Cone Concepts, Inc. v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
- Richards v. Upjohn Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by8 opinions
- Pincheira v. Allstate InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- In the Matter of SteinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- In the Matter of ChavezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2013
- In re Chavez, cons. with In re GallegosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2017
- In re Victor Marshall (I)New Mexico Supreme Court · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.