ethical standard in New Mexico

2012See State v. Gonzales, 2005-NMSC-025, ¶ 38 , 138 N.M. 271 , 119 P.3d 151 (adopting the Restatement’s statement of an ethical rule applicable to prosecutors); Bassett v. Sheehan, 2008-NMCA-072, ¶ 9 , 144 N.M. 178 , 184 P.3d 1072 (relying on the Restatement for the proposition that a court may decide in the context of a motion for summary judgment whether a lawyer has breached the duty owed to a client, even though this is usually a question of fact).

2012See State v. Gonzales, 2005-NMSC-025, ¶ 38 , 138 N.M. 271 , 119 P.3d 151 (adopting the Restatement’s statement of an ethical rule applicable to prosecutors); Bassett v. Sheehan, 2008-NMCA-072, ¶ 9 , 144 N.M. 178 , 184 P.3d 1072 (relying on the Restatement for the proposition that a court may decide in the context of a motion for summary judgment whether a lawyer has breached the duty owed to a client, even though this is usually a question of fact).

2017See Thoreen, 653 F.2d at 1339 (noting that scrupulous candor and truthfulness in representations of any matter before a court is a basic ethical requirement for attorneys). 3.

2017See Thoreen, 653 F.2d at 1339 (noting that 13 scrupulous candor and truthfulness in representations of any matter before a court is 14 a basic ethical requirement for attorneys). 15 3.

2007“A lawyer shall not ... in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence]}]” Rule 16-304(E) NMRA; State v. Vallejos, 86 N.M. 39, 43 , 519 P.2d 135, 139 (Ct.App.1974) (citing breach of this ethical standard). {86} We consistently hold that counsel should not argue facts outside the record, looking to ABA Prosecution Standards and other accepted norms as benchmarks by which to gauge prosecutorial conduct.

2007“A lawyer shall not ... in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence]}]” Rule 16-304(E) NMRA; State v. Vallejos, 86 N.M. 39, 43 , 519 P.2d 135, 139 (Ct.App.1974) (citing breach of this ethical standard). {86} We consistently hold that counsel should not argue facts outside the record, looking to ABA Prosecution Standards and other accepted norms as benchmarks by which to gauge prosecutorial conduct.

2007See State v. Martinez, 2001-NMCA-059, ¶ 32 , 130 N.M. 744 , 31 P.3d 1018 ; State v. Cooper, 2000-NMCA-041 , ¶ 15, 129 N.M. 172 , 3 P.3d 149 ; American Bar Association, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function § 3-5.6(b) (3d ed.1993) (“A prosecutor should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury.”); 2 Michael H.

2007See State v. Martinez, 2001-NMCA-059, ¶ 32 , 130 N.M. 744 , 31 P.3d 1018 ; State v. Cooper, 2000-NMCA-041 , ¶ 15, 129 N.M. 172 , 3 P.3d 149 ; American Bar Association, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function § 3-5.6(b) (3d ed.1993) (“A prosecutor should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury.”); 2 Michael H.

2025See Rule 16-303(A)(1) NMRA (requiring that “a lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal”); see, e.g., In re Dixon, 2019-NMSC-006 , 435 P.3d 80 . {4} Katrina continued her attempts to stop Defendant from reaching Victim, until Defendant pushed past her and exited the store.

2010See In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 25 , 143 N.M. 387 , 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam) (providing that an ethical violation premised on the misappropriation of client funds requires a dishonest motive and cannot be based on negligent conduct); see also In re Obert, 336 Or. 640 , 89 P.3d 1173, 1177-78 (2004) (en banc) (recognizing that a misrepresentation need not be driven by an improper motive and does not require an intent to commit fraud).

2010See In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 25 , 143 N.M. 387 , 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam) (providing that an ethical violation premised on the misappropriation of client funds requires a dishonest motive and cannot be based on negligent conduct); see also In re Obert, 336 Or. 640 , 89 P.3d 1173, 1177-78 (2004) (en banc) (recognizing that a misrepresentation need not be driven by an improper motive and does not require an intent to commit fraud).

2010See In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 25 , 143 N.M. 387 , 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam) (providing that an ethical violation premised on the misappropriation of client funds requires a dishonest motive and cannot be based on negligent conduct); see also In re Obert, 336 Or. 640 , 89 P.3d 1173, 1177-78 (2004) (en banc) (recognizing that a misrepresentation need not be driven by an improper motive and does not require an intent to commit fraud).

2010See In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 25 , 143 N.M. 387 , 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam) (providing that an ethical violation premised on the misappropriation of client funds requires a dishonest motive and cannot be based on negligent conduct); see also In re Obert, 336 Or. 640 , 89 P.3d 1173, 1177-78 (2004) (en banc) (recognizing that a misrepresentation need not be driven by an improper motive and does not require an intent to commit fraud).

2006In re Clark, 87 P.3d at 830 (“In disciplinary proceedings, a respondent’s mental state can both determine whether an ethical violation occurs and affect the appropriate discipline for a violation.”). {32} Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986, as amended 1992) (ABA Standards), suspension from the practice of law is ordinarily only warranted when an attorney acts intentionally with a dishonest, deceitful, or fraudulent motive.

2006See ABA Standards § 4.42 (providing that suspension is generally warranted when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to the client); § 6.12 (providing that suspension is generally warranted when a lawyer knowingly submits false statements or documents to the court, fails to take remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the proceeding); see also In re Key, 2005-NMSC-014, ¶ 5 , 137 N.M. 517 , 113 P.3d 340 (recognizing that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate lawyer dis

2006See ABA Standards § 4.42 (providing that suspension is generally warranted when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to the client); § 6.12 (providing that suspension is generally warranted when a lawyer knowingly submits false statements or documents to the court, fails to take remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the proceeding); see also In re Key, 2005-NMSC-014, ¶ 5 , 137 N.M. 517 , 113 P.3d 340 (recognizing that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate lawyer dis

1995While we agree that the authority of a trial court to fashicn rulings in the best interests of the children involved in an action is broad, see Jeantete v. Jeantete, 111 N.M. 417, 421 , 806 P.2d 66, 70 (Ct.App.1990), we decline to find that such authority is broad enough to disqualify a party’s counsel of choice absent an ethical violation or other violation of law, court order, or rule sufficient to remove counsel from a case.

1995While we agree that the authority of a trial court to fashicn rulings in the best interests of the children involved in an action is broad, see Jeantete v. Jeantete, 111 N.M. 417, 421 , 806 P.2d 66, 70 (Ct.App.1990), we decline to find that such authority is broad enough to disqualify a party’s counsel of choice absent an ethical violation or other violation of law, court order, or rule sufficient to remove counsel from a case.

1995See Nyquist, 590 F.2d at 1246 (“[W]ith rare exceptions^] disqualification has been ordered only in essentially two kinds of cases,” both involving breaches of Code of Professional Responsibility.).