*1 679 supra, granted temporary restrain- City relief and La Nat. Bank Salle 1954, ing applied only Chicago, 375, 1963-64 order to the school Ill.2d N.E.2d 486.z year. plainly record indicates Therefore, the cause is remanded to year transfers were for the aforementioned to, the district court with directions dismiss only, and the localities to which the teach- complaint restraining dissolve the assigned ers were to be in the 1964-65 order; prеjudice, however; without to the year, thereafter, completely school out- rights of the to' take defendants-in-error' scope side the case. Exhibits in the they may prop such further action as deem only case refer to the transfer a differ- n er. parties Each of the their bear ent school “for 1963-64 school term. .i own costs. It is'so ordered. ” * * * Therefore, unfortunate as it be, disposition the final of this cause must COMPTON, J., CHAVEZ, C. J., day. await another The 1963-64 school concur. year already having gone, any come and de- termination made us of the issues would questions. decision on moot
“ * * * a will review not be
granted questions involved, where the
either
circumstance,
time
have
become
Vogel, 1935,
moot.”—State v.
However, because of the involved situa- case,
tion the writ dismiss with- adequate,
out more would not be and the
rights parties to take whatever fur-
ther action proper necessary deem preserved.
must be Vogel, See State v. *2 Watkins, Neal, Hobbs, Lon P.
C. M. Carlsbad, respondent. for Gen., Atty. Thomas A. Hartley, Earl E. Fe, Gen., Atty. for Donnelly, Santa Asst. relator. Skinner, Raton, amicus curiae.
Robert S. PER CURIAM. respond- against
Disciplinary proceedings ent, Morris, by were instituted Charles N. ethics, grievance dis- the committee on because, cipline association of the state bar therein, respondent had been charged “convicted of 40- manslaughter of Section violation 24-7, N.M.S.A., Court in the District County, Mexico, New Dona Ana 11,060 on Docket of Cause Criminal hearing, as After notice and said court.” pro- disciplinary provided in rules for our 1), ceedings, 21-2-1(3) (3) (Part N.M. S.A.1953, bar commissioners the board of findings fact and conclusions with made respondent be sus- a recommendation that pended practice of law for an in- practice from thе “Persons admitted to law in period. The matter was then part definite this state judicial are a court, exceptions system to the re- docketed of the state and officers of its port by respondent, filed the record certified courts. commissioners, filed,
by the briefs oral practice “A license tó law confers no argument presented, ripe for and is now right, vested but privi- is a conditional decision. lеge, revocable for cause. exceptions Although taken were “This has power court the inherent report respondent to of the bar commis- duty prescribe qualifica- sion, points these are into 8 re- consolidated required tions that shall be for ad- grouped lied in- on for reversal and further law; practice mission to per- to admit headings argument. to 4 for law; practice prescribе sons to power making The rule lawyers; connection standards of conduct for attorneys, admitting disciplining grounds determine what constitutes for court, recognized inherent in this was lawyers; discipline, cause, legislature persons our N.M.S.L. for practice when Ch. admitted to *3 18-1-1, (§ N.M.S.A.1953) state; it was stated law in this and to the revoke Supreme “by rules every lawyer that the Court should license of whose unfitness promulgated practiсe define and time to time to duly law has been estab- ” * * * regulate practice of law within the lished. ” * * * State of New Mexico. quote pertinent We following also portions August,
In effective November of the rules: promulgated for this court the rules “2.01 All of the members of the disciplinary proceedings and now in force bar support have taken an oath to proceeding. quote applicable in this We Constitution and the laws of state this preamble: from the of United States. As officers lawyers purpose of “The of court, charged of the' public, pro- protection is the of the laws, obedience to these both in and fession, jus- the administration of court, high out of and to observe the tice, punishment of the and not the professional standards of conduct. person disciplined. Traditionally, lawyers for standards integrity higher expected lay-
“Only persons have been than of of prac- practice permitted A license be men. law is a character should proclamation by this court tice law.
' public may holder is one to whom the not, itself, shall in and of constitute a - professional entrust matters. charge defense to a of misconduct. -lawyers must be true to that trust and * ** “2.06 Conviction a crime of relatiоnship his confidential to his involving turpitude moral be con- client,- public whether- such client be a proof guilt clusive the re- of body private- aor individual. spondent, (emphasis supplied) and a The' “2.02 court does’not undertake plea guilty plea or a of nolo con- by-.,these, promulgate -to a Code rflles tendere, where judgment followed (cid:127) governing,-':all discipline. causes for conviction, shall, bе deemed to be a The,,enumeration cate here'of-certain conviction meaning within the of this gories constituting lof misconduct' . rule.” grounds ¡discipline for shall not be presented The issues for our determina- all-inclusive, nor shall the .deemed- be may tion be summarized as follows: Is , failure; specify-any particular act disciplinary quoted action under the above as toler :misconduct .construed rules indiсated when a member of the bar iby. anee court. thereof crime of man- ’ “2.'03' The fact that certain acts of slaughter resulting from driving a motor unprofessional conduct at times vehicle while under the influence of intoxi- unchallenged have' rémáined shall not cating liquor? otherwise, Stated is the of- wrongdoer. excuse a fense an “contrary act honesty, justice or ' addition, morals” ? In “2-.04 T-he' commission is the offensе one involving honesty, moral so that con- viction morals, proof committed in thereof is guilt the act is conclusive .whether of his relations as attor .course of a character requiring disbarring sus- .otherwise, ney. and whether or not pending practice from the ? misdemeanor, felony or is a the-act Respondent’s argument is that ,a discipline. If for cause constitutes while under the influence of felony or misde act constitutes t is misdemeanor and a in a crimi conviction thereof me^inpr, *4 with a penalty maximum days jail of 90 in nal; pre a condition is. not proceeding . (Hamilton fine Walker, $200.00 v. 65 * * * (Empha discipline. to, cedent; 470, N.M. 340 407) true, P.2d being and this (cid:127) n supplied) sis the untoward or unintended result of such (cid:127) “?2.05 The fact that an act is malum an act —in this instance the death of five prohibitum people malum in rather than se not alter the nature of the —would prepared declare .not argu While agree with the unable are act. We felony every been in case where a has pleaded guilty to Respondent has ment. of the bar disci de a member was committed manslaughter which involuntary action, required, N.M.S.A.1953, plinary justified or is 40-24-7, in fined § “ * * * be contended the board of bar commission a human killing of unlawful have.difficulty ers, case we concede that we in the instant must malice” and ing without felony unlaw imagining what kind of a could “commission out of the arose felony.” “contrary 40- being be considered as not. amounting to a § ful act not honesty, punishment N.M.S.A.1953, provided or As stated morals.” 24— 2.01, above, “imprisonment quoted as members of the upon conviction § bar, not less period lawyers charged, for a with obedience to penitentiary state than one [1] year nor more than ten [10] laws are sworn to uphold. Fur 2.02, was argument ther, supra, this years.” fault with stated rules do § Walker, supra, purport up Hamilton v. to be all-inclusive as to causes pointed not dis were Supreme discipline. quite apparent Court cases to us for It is wherein two Colts, 282 v. Columbia District of 2.04 the basis cussed: recites Dis required, viz., “any L.Ed. con discipline act U.S. S.Ct. is Clawans, U.S. honesty, justice trary trict of Columbia or in cases may may 843. Both be a misde L.Ed. not 57 S.Ct. That the act or but, city felony, purely ordinances volved violations or a coincidental. meanor charg turpitude case the offense consid Similarly, in the Colts moral is not a whereas did not provided for a the bar commits penalty ed and the eration. a member of If petty could turpitude, a one which fact is involving make the offense moral crime case jury, in Clawans re a him and against be tried without conclusive However, was violation thé quired. (§ 2.06) differed so the whether these elements here, charged Similarly, person is misconduct with which a petty class. in the or, if involving while is a crime moral offense of whereas the first crime, prohibitum whether it is malum the influence of under matter, ; or, provided 2.05) penalty (§ malum in se for that with the when considered offense, misde petty it does if the act is neither a held us to be a was meanor, question not the The true that the offense issue. follow great respondent requires is: to' which manslaughter, a much Was the pleaded honesty, justice guilty “contrary penalty, offense. Un er is likewise felony. clearly morals”? der our law it is *5 unlikely us, that the New Mexico It is not we are before Viewing the situation commissioners, of bar in the instant the conduct of board that the conclusion forced tо case, Miller, holding had the in Baker v. breach a serious respondent constituted laws, supra, in mind recommended in- and the when obey the oath to him of his suspension, the more con- definite rather than the constituted of commission penalty morals Under 3.01 contrary and severe of disbarment. duct rules, findings, con- of our supports the accordingly and the board of and recommendations clusions permanent “Discipline (a) be: signifi- attach no of bar commisioners. We disbarment, (b) suspension for an or of the time fact that at the cance to the period, subject only to termi- indefinite respondent of the act to which commission provided, or, (c) nation as hereinafter serving pleaded an assist- guilty he was censure, (d) such other action attorney. ant district ”* * * proper. the court as it deems consideration given serious We have The cited in the note follow cases Miller, of Baker Ind. case
the
Miller, supra, starting
ing Baker v.
at 59
on and
N.E.2d
relied
A.L.R.2d
variety
great
A.L.R.2d
disclose a
by respondent. As
quoted
length
from at
approaches
problem
to the
of what is
above,
moral tur-
stated
we do not consider
turpitude”
what
not “moral
in connection
necessary
pitude
support
a
disci-
element
lawyers.
with incomе tax law violations
or,
pline,
synonymous with
that it
situation,
it,
we
materi
view
honesty,
justice or
contrary to
“conduct
ally different
a
bar
when member of
App.
Jacoby,
morals.” In re
74 Ohio
However,
felony.
has been convicted of a
Miller
We considered This upon Supreme have action is based Court arguments 3-2.204, additional to thе effect that sus Rule providing that the commission pension “any of his license under the circum honesty, justice present rights guar stances here violates morals” constitutes cause for disci- anteed him under the fifth fourteenth plinary action. The turns decision *6 to the amendments the' Constitution majority conclusion of the that the uninten- II, 18, of United and under Art. Sec. States killing being tional of a human in the com- find no the New Mexico We act, amounting Constitution. mission of an unlawful not points. do we con felony, merit in these Neither “honesty, to a is any anything morals,” sider that stated above and good as those words are used way holdings with conflicts the Schware in the rule. Examiners, 232,
v. 353 U.S. Board of Bar We turn first to the definition 752, 796, 1 L.Ed.2d 64 A.L.R.2d 77 S.Ct. Actually, words three themselves. 288, Barsky Regents of nor v. Board words, rule, used in an as have almost York, University of New State and, meaning, I identical shall hereafter 829, 442, 650, 98 L.Ed. 347 U.S. 74 S.Ct. show, synonymously with used the term com respondent. See note relied on turpitude.” Thesaurus, Roget’s “moral process mencing L.Ed. where due 98 “honesty” synonymous 939.7 defines professional revoking is discussed. licenses “integrity” with “adhering principles.” respondent suspended The adjective, Used as an upright; it means period. He practice of law for an indefinite honorable; reputable, estimable, worthy, may аpply suspension for termination of creditable. year passage of from the effective after one “Justice,” rule, as used in the means “The order, upon completion of date of this principle just of rectitude and dealing of to him in the cause sentence meted out other; also, men conformity with each pleaded guilty, he whichever has it; rectitude; integrity; one of the cardi- later, uрon being restored to all civil nal virtues.” Webster’s Dic- International rights. tionary; States, Lamborn & Co. v. United It is so ordered. F.Supp. 569, 576, 65 106 “Im- Ct.Cl. 703. morality,” course, opposite is the NOBLE, (dissenting). Justice “good immorality morals.” defines Webster quality being “the or state of immoral: agree I am unable to either with the result vice, wickedness; esp: unchastity;” also, reasoning majority, reached or the it practice.” rests. “an immoral act or de- Bouvier 686 “immorality” synonymous.
fines
to be “that which is con-
tude” are
We have held that
mores;”
trary
driving
to bonos
and Ballentine
under
while
the influence of intoxi
says:
cating liquor
offense,
ais
and one
charged therewith is not entitled
immorality,
person’s
“To constitute
jury
Walker,
trial. Hamilton v.
65 N.M.
conduct must be such as to amount to
would be depth perception be unable to so as to “honesty,. justice contrary to crime is one distinguish the another cár trav- distance to morals,” good it is because and Yet, eling in the under same direction. by genеrally- statute offends denounced case, majority lawyer holding a Indeed, accepted mankind. moral code of p. posted who drove 65 m. h. in a 60-mile itself very language Rule 3-2.206 zone and who struck the rear.of-another only supports It is where the above view. car, occupant resulting death turpi- involving “moral the offense is one thereof, just would be of involun- sufficient, in that mere conviction is tude” tary mаnslaughter in this as was- Morris. itself, disciplinary action. and of to warrant Yet, anyone I case. doubt whether wortld logically majority It follows from the willing practice a to revoke license decision that if the conviction of involun- law because of such an unfortunate result tary manslaughter resulting the com- petty contrary of a offense not itself misdemeanor, petty it- a mission of “honesty, justice morals.” I am сontrary “honesty, self is not an act see, majority unable to and the have not morals,” sufficient to out, pointed respect in what the unfortu- attorney, revoke the license of an then nate, unintended result of such every law reasoning, the same road viola- raises it being level of unintentionally lawyer re- tion “honesty, justice person in the would like- sults death of require Some ex- majority say disciplinary wise such rеvocation. action amples analogous every are the required justified situations is neither nor yellow line, crossing in excess case where a has been committed: *8 limit, any Yet, posted speed other vio- it can a member of the bar. unless which, gave in and rise to lation of the laws of the road be said that the facts which clearly themselves, of not con- death in one case are offеnses “honesty, good trary “honesty, justice justice and morals,” contrary in the reasoning majority, but are not so Under the how- of untrustworthy attorney and a re- such in fact no basis for other, be there would court, upon imposition dis- flection bar and the of for the distinction nor thereof, that demand his in the other. as an officer in and not ciplinary action one disbarment.” Furthermore, provisions of all of the interpretеd disciplinary rules must be pointed majority any- has not out purpose, e.: expressed light i. of thing in the mere fact while under the influence of lawyers purpose “The depraved which in and of itself evinces a pro- public, the protection of the is the lawyer character renders a un- fession, jus- and the administration trustworthy or a the bar reflection tice, per- punishment of the and not the court, thereof, or the as an officer dis- disciplined. son tinguished from the violation of other “Only persons integrity and law unintentionally of the road which re- prac- permitted to character should be sults the death of another. tice law.” I dissent. provides that though Rule 3-2.204 Even committed need not be the action attorney, it as an
course of his relations contrary to requires it
nevertheless
“honesty, justice and
morals”
kentin v. 166 Okl. lees. P.2d where it was said: No. 7492. every “The not demand that law does Supreme Court of New Mexico. technical of the law infraction Nov. 1964. disbarment, attorney require his attorney' although an should endeavor Rehearing Denied Jan. 1965. law; literally to observe but it duty by infractions of an attor- those
ney involve moral character,' depraved rendering
evince