Legal Opinion

In Re Robert Matthew Bristol

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 2006No. 29,341PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

{1} In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, we are called upon to clarify the standard of review to use when reviewing recommendations for sanctions under the Rules Governing Discipline. In so doing, we must resolve conflicting findings, conclusions and recommendations for discipline issued by two separate bodies — a hearing committee and a hearing panel — both appointed by the Disciplinary Board to conduct two different types of hearings during the course of this proceeding. For the reasons that follow, we determine that attorney Robert Matthew Bristol (Respondent) should be…

3Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. McCorkleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. In the Matter of SaabMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  3. In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against PooleWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  4. In Re PautlerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  5. In Re ReardonSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by25 opinions

  1. In the Matter of YalkutNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
  2. In the Matter of SteinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
  3. In the Matter of LocatelliNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
  4. In the Matter of Michele EstradaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2006
  5. In Matter of ConvisserNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2010

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API