Matter of Richards
1997 NMSC 035, 943 P.2d 1032, 123 N.M. 579 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the professional duty of candor to a tribunal by knowingly making a false statement of material fact, which includes intentionally omitting critical portions of a direct quotation from the record in a legal brief to mislead the court and create a more favorable, but false, impression of the events.
Facts:
- Robert Richards, representing himself, sued Arthur Adair over events that occurred at a nightclub, Rodeo Nites.
- Richards attempted to depose a representative of Rodeo Nites, a non-party to the lawsuit.
- Adair and his attorney, George Scarborough, appeared for the deposition, but Rodeo Nites failed to appear.
- In response, Richards filed a motion to show cause against Rodeo Nites, and Scarborough filed a motion on behalf of Adair to recover fees from Richards for the wasted appearance.
- At a subsequent court hearing on March 1, 1994, the judge considered both motions.
- During the hearing, Richards objected when Scarborough began to present his motion for fees.
- Richards' stated reason for the objection was his belief that Scarborough was improperly representing both Adair and Rodeo Nites, not that he lacked notice of the hearing on Adair's motion.
- The trial court denied Richards' motion and awarded attorney's fees to both Adair and Rodeo Nites.
Procedural Posture:
- Richards appealed the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- In a motion for rehearing before the Court of Appeals, Richards included the redacted quotation from the trial transcript.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion for rehearing, noting the omission created a false impression, and referred Richards to the disciplinary board.
- The disciplinary board conducted a hearing and found that Richards knowingly made a false statement of material fact, recommending a public censure.
- Richards requested a hearing before the Supreme Court of New Mexico to review the board's recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's intentional omission of material language from a transcript quotation in a legal brief, which alters the meaning of the dialogue to support the attorney's argument, constitute a knowing misrepresentation of material fact in violation of the duty of candor to a tribunal?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney's intentional omission of material language from a transcript quotation in a legal brief constitutes a knowing misrepresentation of material fact and a violation of the duty of candor. The court found that Richards' edited quotation was not zealous advocacy, but a deceitful and dishonest act. By omitting the portion of the transcript where he explained the basis for his objection (conflict of interest), Richards attempted to mislead the Court of Appeals into believing his objection was based on a lack of notice, a more viable issue for his appeal. The court reasoned that a lawyer's arguments must be based on the actual state of events, not a distorted version. The omitted language was material because it fundamentally changed the meaning of the text and was intended to increase the chance that the appellate court would rule in his favor based on a false premise.
Analysis:
This case serves as a stark reminder of the absolute nature of an attorney's duty of candor to the court. The court's decision clarifies that misrepresentation is not limited to affirmative falsehoods but includes strategic omissions from quotations that alter the record's meaning. It establishes that a lawyer's subjective justification for such an omission is irrelevant if the objective effect is to mislead the tribunal. This precedent reinforces that the line between zealous advocacy and professional misconduct is crossed when an attorney manipulates the factual record presented to the court.
