In re Venie
2017 NMSC 18
| N.M. | 2017Background
- Attorney D. Chipman Venie was charged in two consolidated disciplinary matters for misconduct arising from representation of three clients (L.A., R.C., and A.C.) and was permanently disbarred on January 18, 2017.
- For L.A.: a recorded May 22, 2011 conversation showed Venie advising L.A. to "pay off" (bribe) witnesses, offering to deliver payments, preparing affidavits inconsistent with what he knew, and publicly disclosing confidential admissions in a fee-dispute pleading.
- For R.C.: R.C.’s mother wired $100,000 for bond; Venie posted bond but deposited the funds into his personal account, later returning only part and asserting substantial additional fees based on a retainer refund clause signed by R.C.’s parents (not by R.C.), then refusing to return the balance on demand.
- For A.C.: Venie demanded additional fees beyond a prepaid flat retainer, filed an invoice including already-paid services, and recorded a lien against A.C.’s mother’s property to secure alleged fees.
- Disciplinary Board hearing committees found multiple rule violations and recommended disbarment; this Court reviewed de novo and affirmed disbarment, restitution, injunctions, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Board) | Defendant's Argument (Venie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 17-303 limitations bar the bribery charge from May 22, 2011 | Amendment to Rule 17-303 abolished the limitations defense and applies because Venie had no vested right in the prior rule | The 1994 four-year limitations rule should apply retroactively to bar the 2011 conduct from prosecution | Amendment applies; charges not time‑barred because Venie had no vested right in the old limitations period |
| Whether Venie counseled/assisted client to commit witness bribery (ethical violation) | Recording shows repeated advice to “pay off” witnesses and offer to make payments; violates Rule 16‑102(D) | Claimed necessity/zealous advocacy (implicit defense) | Held Venie counseled and offered to assist in bribery; violated Rule 16‑102(D); this alone supports disbarment |
| Whether Venie knowingly made false statements / introduced false evidence to tribunals | Venie drafted and filed affidavits and pleadings inconsistent with his knowledge from the recording; violated candor rules (16‑303, 16‑301, 16‑804) | Asserted duty to zealously defend client; attempted to impeach witnesses and pursue civil claims | Held Venie knowingly misrepresented material facts to tribunals and disciplinary authorities; violated multiple candor and misconduct rules |
| Whether Venie properly disclosed client confidences in fee dispute | Disclosures were not limited to proving fees and were publicly filed, revealing sensitive admissions; violated Rule 16‑106 | Claimed exceptions to disclosure (prevent harm, establish defense against client) | Held disclosures were improper and not justified by exceptions; violated Rule 16‑106(A) |
| Whether Venie could withhold or convert third‑party bond funds and assert liens against third‑party property to satisfy fees | Venie converted bond funds and asserted liens against non‑client property, claiming retaining‑lien rights | Claimed entitlement to retain/charge funds under retainer and retaining‑lien principles and quantum meruit | Held Venie converted third‑party funds, wrongfully detained money, and could not assert retaining liens against third‑party property; restitution ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (discussing limits on defense counsel’s duty to present truth and right to impeach)
- Thoreen v. United States, 653 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981) (attorney candor and limits of zealous advocacy)
- State v. Morales, 148 N.M. 305, 236 P.3d 24 (rule change affecting vested‑rights analysis for limitations)
- Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 140 N.M. 129, 140 P.3d 550 (extension/abolishment of limitations applies when no vested right exists)
- Guest v. Allstate Ins. Co., 149 N.M. 74, 244 P.3d 342 (quantum meruit limited to services actually performed prior to discharge)
- In re Yalkut, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (flat fee earned‑on‑receipt must be placed in trust until earned; attorney trust obligations)
- Dixon v. State Bar of Cal., 653 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1982) (sanctioning attorney for breaching client confidentiality)
- McKnight v. Rice, Hoppner, Brown & Brunner, 678 P.2d 1330 (Alaska 1984) (retaining lien limited to client property)
- Castillo v. Arrieta, 368 P.3d 1249 (attorney fee agreements enforceable only when fully known and understood by client)
- McPherson v. Cox, 96 U.S. 404 (distinguishing circumstances where attorney holds client funds by agreement and may apply them to fees)