In re Crespo Peña
195 P.R. Dec. 318
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2016Background
- Civil case: Edwin Ortiz Rivera sued Sheila Taina Bermúdez Mateo; Verónica del C. Crespo Peña represented Bermúdez Mateo and answered the complaint.
- Trial court (Coamo) ordered the parties to follow Rule 37 procedures, coordinate a meeting, and prepare a case management report.
- Crespo Peña repeatedly failed to respond to opposing counsel's meeting requests and ignored the trial court's repeated orders.
- The trial court declared client Bermúdez Mateo in default, set the case for trial, and fined Crespo Peña $500; Crespo Peña failed to respond to the fine or show cause orders.
- The trial court referred the matter to the Supreme Court for possible ethics violations; the Supreme Court gave Crespo Peña two additional opportunities to respond and she ignored both.
- The Supreme Court suspended Crespo Peña indefinitely from the practice of law and notary public, ordered client and court notifications, return of files and unearned fees, surrender of notarial seal and records for inspection, and required certification of compliance within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crespo Peña's repeated failure to comply with court orders violated professional ethics | Ortiz/tribunal argued noncompliance showed contempt and violated Canon 9 duty to respect courts and promptly obey orders | Crespo Peña did not present argument—failed to respond to orders or show cause | Court held her noncompliance violated Canon 9 and justified discipline |
| Whether failure to respond to Supreme Court disciplinary notices independently warrants suspension | Tribunal: silence to disciplinary process demonstrates disrespect for Court authority and may warrant immediate suspension | No response from Crespo Peña to contest discipline | Court held that ignoring disciplinary orders alone is sufficient cause for immediate suspension |
| Appropriate sanction for persistent noncompliance with court orders | Trial court fined and ordered response; Supreme Court sought explanation and compliance | Crespo Peña offered no mitigation or explanations | Court ordered immediate, indefinite suspension and ancillary obligations (client notice, file/fee return, notify forums, surrender notarial items) |
| Effect of suspension on merits of underlying referral from trial judge | Underlying merits may remain pending for later assessment | Crespo Peña did not contest merits due to nonresponse | Court deferred merits for evaluation upon any reinstatement request |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rivera Navarro, 193 D.P.R. 303 (2015) (ethical rules govern attorneys for public and institutional confidence)
- In re Nieves Nieves, 181 D.P.R. 25 (2011) (Canon 9 requires respect for courts and prompt compliance with orders)
- In re Pestaña Segovia, 192 D.P.R. 485 (2015) (failure to respond to court orders and deadlines supports disciplinary measures)
- In re Martínez Rodríguez, 192 D.P.R. 539 (2015) (noncompliance with court’s orders constitutes contempt of the court’s authority)
- In re Dávila Toro, 193 D.P.R. 159 (2015) (showing indifference to court orders violates Canon 9)
- In re Irizarry Irizarry, 190 D.P.R. 368 (2014) (disobedience and disregard of disciplinary warnings justify immediate suspension)