In re Guerrero Ledesma
190 P.R. 237
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico2014Background
- Alberto Guerrero Ledesma was admitted to the bar on January 9, 1970; he voluntarily resigned his notary commission in 1988.
- Nicolasa Tobar filed a complaint against Guerrero Ledesma on August 7, 2012.
- The Supreme Court’s Subsecretary sent certified notices (Nov 26, 2012; Mar 20, 2013) requesting a response; both mails were returned unclaimed or with delivery failure.
- The Court issued a final resolution on June 18, 2013 giving Guerrero Ledesma ten days to respond and warning that noncompliance could result in severe discipline; that notice was delivered but Guerrero Ledesma still did not respond.
- The Court found Guerrero Ledesma’s failure to comply showed indifference to Court orders and a breach of ethical duties to the tribunal.
- The Court ordered immediate and indefinite suspension from the practice of law, required client notifications, return of unearned fees, and certification of compliance within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to respond to disciplinary complaint violates ethical duties | Tobar (via Court) argued Guerrero’s nonresponse violates duty to comply with Court and justifies discipline | Guerrero Ledesma offered no response or defense | Court held nonresponse violates Canon 9 duty of respect to courts and warrants discipline |
| Whether Court may suspend an attorney for ignoring Court orders | Court/complainant asserted suspension is proper when attorney ignores directives and warnings | Guerrero Ledesma did not contest; no mitigating evidence presented | Court held immediate and indefinite suspension appropriate when lawyer ignores warnings in disciplinary context |
| What remedial steps the suspended attorney must take | Court/complainant requested client notice, return of unearned fees, and notification to tribunals | No response from Guerrero Ledesma | Court imposed requirements: notify clients, return fees for unperformed work, inform forums, and certify compliance within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Irizarry Colón, 189 DPR 913 (2013) (attorney must comply with court disciplinary procedures)
- In re López González, 189 DPR 581 (2013) (Court will not tolerate indifference to its orders)
- In re Montes Díaz, 184 DPR 90 (2011) (suspension appropriate when attorney ignores disciplinary directives)
- In re Fiel Martínez, 180 DPR 426 (2010) (duty to respond to tribunal requirements)
- In re Morales Rodríguez, 179 DPR 766 (2010) (disciplinary context demands compliance because conduct is under scrutiny)
- In re Feliciano Jiménez, 176 DPR 234 (2009) (failure to obey court orders merits sanction)
- In re Salichs Martínez, 131 DPR 481 (1992) (Canon 9 requires respect toward courts)