IN THIS EDITION Message from the President Page 3 DLA Contributors Page 12 2011 CLE Schedule Page 18 NMDLA Lawyer of the Year & Award Winners Page 18 DEFENSE news Fall 2011 Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, New Mexico Disciplinary Board Interviewed by Harriett J. Hickman, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., and Alex C. Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Page 4 Interview of the Honorable Mark T. Sanchez, Fifth Judicial District Court Interviewed by Bryan Evans, Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, P.A. Page 10 Update on New Mexico ―Indemnification‖ Law Following Holguin v. Fulco Oil Services, LLC By Courtenay Keller, Riley, Shane & Keller, P.A. Page 14 The Legal News Journal for New Mexico Civil Defense Lawyers The Judges‘ Forum Compiled and Reported on by Andrew Johnson, Johnson Law Firm, L.C. Page 16 The New Mentor Program in a Nutshell By Nancy Franchini, Esq., Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C. Page 17
Transcript
Defense News Fall 2011
IN THIS EDITION
Message from the President
Page 3
DLA Contributors
Page 12
2011 CLE Schedule Page 18
NMDLA Lawyer
of the Year
& Award Winners
Page 18
DEFENSE news
Fall 2011
Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease, Chief Disciplinary
Counsel, New Mexico Disciplinary Board
Interviewed by Harriett J. Hickman, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C.,
and Alex C. Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
Page 4
Interview of the Honorable Mark T. Sanchez,
Fifth Judicial District Court
Interviewed by Bryan Evans, Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, P.A.
Page 10
Update on New Mexico ―Indemnification‖ Law
Following Holguin v. Fulco Oil Services, LLC By Courtenay Keller, Riley, Shane & Keller, P.A.
Page 14
The Legal News Journal for New Mexico Civil Defense Lawyers
The Judges‘ Forum Compiled and Reported on by Andrew Johnson,
Johnson Law Firm, L.C.
Page 16
The New Mentor Program in a Nutshell By Nancy Franchini, Esq., Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C.
Page 17
Defense News 2 Fall 2011
The New Mexico Defense Lawyers Association is the
only New Mexico Organization of civil defense attor-
neys. We currently have over 350 members. A common
misconception about NMDLA is that its membership is
limited to civil defense attorneys specializing solely in
insurance defense. However, membership in NMDLA is
open to all attorneys duly licensed to practice law in
New Mexico who devote the majority of their time to
the defense of civil litigation. Our members include at-
torneys who specialize in commercial litigation, em-
ployment, civil rights, and products liability.
The purpose of NMDLA is to provide a forum where
New Mexico civil defense lawyers can communicate,
associate, and organize efforts of common interest.
NMDLA provides a professional association of New
Mexico civil defense lawyers dedicated to helping its
members improve their legal skills and knowledge.
NMDLA attempts to assist the courts to create reason-
able and understandable standards for emerging areas
of the law, so as to make New Mexico case law depend-
able, reliable, and a positive influence in promoting the
growth of business and the economy in our State.
The services we provide our members include, but are
INTERVIEW OF W ILLIAM ("B ILL") SLEASE, CHIEF D ISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, NEW MEXICO D ISCIPLINARY BOARD
Interviewed by Harriett J. Hickman, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., and
Alex C. Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
Bill Slease, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, NM Disciplinary Board
Interviewer ("Int"): Bill, tell us about your legal practice up until this
point in time.
William ("Bill") Slease ("Slease"): I earned my J.D. from U.N.M. in 1991. After that I
went to work with Keleher & McLeod; actually I had clerked with them while I was going to law school. I worked with them for about 4 years and had a
varied practice—a couple years of litigation and a couple of years primarily in closely held business matters. Then I went to work with Henry Narvaez, and that was all litigation, mostly defense litigation, including the representation of public
schools, insurance agents and brokers, law enforcement officers and some general government and tort liability representation. After about four years with Mr. Narvaez, myself and another attorney, Jonlyn Martinez, started our own
firm in the middle of 1999, and that is where I stayed until I took the job with the Disciplinary Board. We were representing public entities and their employees—primarily civil rights, law enforcement liability, some employment and
general tort liability.
Int: What was the impetus for leaving private practice
and applying for your current position when the position was advertised?
Slease: It looked like an interesting position and an interesting challenge. I have always tried to be a proponent of ethics and professionalism in
practice. I believe that we have an obligation to constantly improve our profession in terms of service to the public. We lawyers also need to improve our image with the public. I thought this was a good way to participate in the process
instead of just sitting on the sidelines and talking about it.
Int: Did you know Virginia Ferrera, the former Chief Disciplinary Counsel? She has been there for 30 years?
Slease: I had seen her at a couple of CLEs, but that was really about it. I didn‘t really know her at all.
Int: Was there any sort of transition? Slease: When I was notified by the Court that they had
made the appointment, the Board was in the middle of the budget process, so I went over and started meeting with Virginia to work on the
budget, and to generally talk about the office. After I started, she was there full-time through the month of December. Now she‘s working with us
part-time.
Int: Oh, I didn‘t realize that.
Slease: Yes. She works primarily on professionalism complaints, meaning complaints that don‘t necessarily rise to the level of violations of the rules of professional conduct but which still need some attention from the lawyer. For example, a
person might call and complain that his or her lawyer is rude on the phone. That might be easily solved with a phone call to the lawyer who is unaware of the tone the lawyer is taking with clients.
Int: What exactly does the Chief Disciplinary Counsel do?
Slease: You run the office, meaning you supervise all the staff, oversee the budget, do both short and long-range strategic planning and work with the Board to set policy and evaluate the rules governing discipline. You also interact with disciplinary
counsel in other jurisdictions to determine if there are ways to do things differently. You also manage the case loads among the attorneys in the office, review the complaints coming in, oversee investigations and prosecutions of complaints, and
carry your own case load.
Int: Are there any areas where New Mexico is behind other jurisdictions?
Slease: I think we need to be doing more with technology. For example, some of the jurisdictions use on-line complaint forms. They are doing better on-line
archiving and tracking of cases and that kind of
Defense News 5 Fall 2011
Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease Continued from Page 4
thing. So getting our technology to that point—it is not that we are necessarily behind, but I think there is some room for us to do things that are a
little bit closer to the cutting edge and that would be exciting.
Int: How many attorneys do you have on staff? Slease: Including me, there are six attorneys and all but
two of us have many years of experience in disciplinary matters.
Int: Is your workload generated by people filing complaints against attorneys?
Slease: There is that, and we get the complaints a number of different ways. We receive complaints from clients, judges, other lawyers and opposing parties. Also, if something comes to our attention in any manner, even if it is not an actual complaint from someone, but it still appears that the lawyer
has engaged in misconduct, then I can file a chief disciplinary complaint.
Int: Do you have investigators on staff or do you do investigative work on your own?
Slease: The lawyers do all the investigative work. The rules do allow us to contract with an investigator if we
think we need one. But for the most part, the lawyers do it on their own. The advantage of having the lawyers do the investigation is that they really know the facts of the case, and this is particularly important in those cases that proceed
to trial.
Int: What kinds of complaints are you seeing against
attorneys? Slease: Some you would expect, for example, trust
violations. We get neglect complaints where somebody takes on a case and then doesn‘t do anything. It is more than just not returning a few
phone calls. It is missing deadlines, failing to file appeals, things that really compromise the client and where the client loses substantive rights, like his or her day in court. We get disruption-of-the-tribunal complaints, people lying to the court,
people lying to opposing counsel and, of course, fee complaints.
Int: I know you have only been there four months, but is there one area that you see more of than others?
Slease: You would think so, but no. At least in these four months, there tends to be a whole variety.
Int: On the neglect complaints, are you able to say whether, if you just picked up the phone a little bit more often, then all of this could have been
avoided, and perhaps it‘s a perception issue. Slease: Right, it can be. You know, the simple ones are
where it‘s ―you don‘t call me back fast enough.‖ That might not rise to the level of a violation of the rules of professional conduct and maybe can be
solved early. The neglect that ends up resulting in charges tends to be several acts of neglect within a case, or several acts of neglect across more than
one case. For example, a lawyer takes a matter, files the complaint, and then doesn‘t do anything—doesn‘t answer discovery, doesn‘t respond to
summary judgment motions, doesn‘t file witness lists, doesn‘t interview witnesses, hopes that if they avoid losing the case on motions, that they can just show up at trial and hope for the best. It‘s that kind of chronic neglect that is a problem. It is
not really a question of whether the client‘s case had merit or not. If a person hires a lawyer, and the lawyer agrees to undertake the representation and give the client his or her day in court, then that‘s what the lawyer better do. If that lawyer got a call
at the first act of neglect, would that pick up the lawyer‘s head? We hope so. Contrary to what a lot of people think, we are not interested in punishing lawyers; that is not the purpose of the disciplinary system. The purpose is to protect the public. Our
goal is to simply protect the public and if we can solve an issue immediately, that is a good outcome for the public.
Int: Talk about that bit if you can. I know there is no sort of standard model that a complaint might follow, but perhaps explain the different paths your office of investigation might take.
Slease: Sure. We get about 700 complaints a year. Of those maybe 15% actually warrant a recommendation of discipline, or charges are pursued. What happens is that when we get in a complaint, we send it out to the lawyer for a response. We usually give the
lawyer a week or two to respond, although if it looks like there is something fairly serious in the allegations, then we will shorten that time-frame to try to get the lawyer‘s response sooner. But usually within a two-week period, we will get a
response from the lawyer. We then review the complaint again, and we consider the lawyer‘s response and any documents we have gathered or that were provided, and then determine what additional investigation, if any, is needed. If there
is additional investigation, then we do that investigation. It could be real simple, like calling a witness or two, looking at some documents, or looking through a court docket. Or it can be very involved. It can be subpoenaing documents,
deposing people, performing lots of interviews, or sending follow-up requests from the lawyer, or from the complainant. So it can be simple or involved. If it appears that there is nothing to it after all the investigation is done, then we can
dismiss it or dismiss it with something that is called a letter of caution. A letter of caution is not discipline. It is a suggestion to the lawyer of a better way to practice in the future to avoid a violation of the rules of professional conduct. It is
a warning, if you will, that the lawyer is close to violating the rules and needs to be more careful.
Int: Okay. Slease: If the matter does not warrant dismissal, we file
with the Board a pleading called a specification of charges. Up until the specification of charges, the investigation is confidential subject to the need to
conduct a meaningful investigation. So, for
Defense News 6 Fall 2011
Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease Continued from Page 5
example, if Harriett complains about me, and you, Alex, are the key witness in the case, well, obviously we can‘t just talk to Harriett or rely on
what I might say, because how meaningful an investigation is that going to be? So if you, Alex, have all the information, then we are going to interview and possibly depose you. Of course, we impress upon you the confidentiality of the matter
if charges have not been filed. But getting back to the specification of charges, if we decide to move forward with the prosecution, we file the specification of charges. That pleading is like a civil complaint or a criminal indictment. It lays out
the facts of the case, the rules we claim were violated, who we think the witnesses are, and the aggravating and mitigating factors—things that might increase the discipline level or things that might decrease the discipline level. Within a short
period of time, 20 days, the respondent lawyer‘s answer is due and then after the answer is filed, within 120 days of that, we have a hearing—a trial. A hearing or trial is held before a 3-member committee. The committee consists of 2 lawyers,
people who are external to the office and not on the Board, and one non-lawyer. All of these people are volunteers who agree to spend their time acting as judge and jury on the disciplinary charges. We present our case to them, and bear
the burden of proving the violation of the rules. The lawyer presents his or her defense. The hearing committee then makes findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommendations for discipline, if any. That decision then gets sent to
the Disciplinary Board, and the Board Chair appoints a 3-member hearing panel from the Board. That is basically the appellate panel. Again, it is made up of 2 lawyers and 1 non-lawyer. The hearing panel makes its recommendations and if
the recommendation is for serious discipline—suspension, disbarment, that sort of discipline—the case goes to the Supreme Court who is ultimately responsible for the imposition of discipline. The Supreme Court can either order oral argument, a brief, both, or they can do none of the
above and perform a direct review and enter an order. So that is generally how the process works. The more complicated cases can take up to 18 months or more to get it from start to finish which is frustrating for people. It is frustrating for the
complainants because they think, ―my lawyer did a bad thing, why isn‘t something happening faster.‖ It is frustrating for the lawyer because you‘ve got that threat on-going for up to 18 months or more. But because of the due process implications for the
lawyer, I mean you are talking about a lawyer‘s livelihood, the case must wind its way through that process.
Int: I know that every once in a while in the Bar Bulletin you might see something about an attorney being disciplined or reprimanded, but it is not generally
published like in California and Washington D.C. In their monthly bulletins, they always have several pages set aside where they just list all the
attorneys that have been disciplined. Slease: The quarterly statistics get published. It is
ultimately the Supreme Court‘s decision as to whether a public disciplinary matter gets published.
Int: Do you actually try these cases or do the other attorneys on your staff try them?
Slease: We all do.
Int: And does the attorney who has the complaint against him or her, do they hire counsel or do they represent themselves?
Slease: Both. I think it is a smart thing for a lawyer subject to a complaint, particularly if charges are filed, to hire a lawyer, and increasingly, malpractice carriers
will provide, for a little bit of a bump in your premium, some coverage. I think it is smart because it‘s serious, it involves your livelihood and you‘re not objective about it. It‘s an issue of alleged misconduct, and it‘s threatening what you
do for a living, so you are not always thinking clearly.
Int: How many cases do you have? Slease: We get about 700 complaints a year. The number
pending at any one time varies quite a bit, so it would be hard to give an exact number.
Int: What surprised you or what sticks out to you that ―gosh, I didn‘t ever think about that or even know
that when I was in private practice‖? Slease: I will be the first to admit that for a long time in
private practice, particularly when I first started, I was terrified of the Disciplinary Board and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, because I had the
notion that they were just there simply to punish lawyers and to take our licenses away. It colors your view of the system and it makes lawyers less cognizant of their duty to report other lawyers‘ misconduct. When you come to realize that the
disciplinary system is set up to protect the public, not punish lawyers, it takes that stigma away and hopefully pushes lawyers to pursue that higher notion of, ―we have to effectively regulate our profession because it is the right thing to do.‖
Int: This is probably something I should know or could learn by perhaps looking at some of the rules, but
you‘ve mentioned complaints by lawyers against other lawyers. My sense, not based on any actual data, is that people are hesitant to make those types of complaints, and that it is very, very serious, that the complaining lawyer will be found
out by the person who is called upon to respond to the board. What, if anything, can you say on that topic?
Slease: There is that stigma. I tell people that when I took the MPRE review course back in law school, it was a
video tape, and the instructor came on and said that if you remember two things, you would answer any question correctly. One was to not steal
Defense News 7 Fall 2011
from your clients. And the other one was to rat out all your friends. And I thought, you know, that is
not the way you want to present this because that creates an additional stigma. Rule 803 has a reporting requirement if you know, so that there is a sort of objective evidence that a lawyer is violating the rules, and it is serious—you‘ve got to
do something about it, you‘ve got to report it. That is a higher standard than non-lawyers have. By doing so, you are helping the people you have been given the privilege to represent, the public.
Int: In New Mexico, is there a support system, so for example, if a lawyer has been taking funds out of his trust account because he has got a substance
abuse problem, if he is suspended for example, would he be suspended with a requirement that he go to some kind of support group or AA or something of that nature to get help?
Slease: There‘s the lawyer‘s assistance committee which is
very active. The State Bar recently created a full-time position to work with lawyer‘s assistance and work with lawyers who have substance abuse problems, depression, and other issues.
Int: Do you get a lot of complaints filed by judges? Slease: That is not the bulk of where they come from. Most
of them come from clients, and maybe to a lesser
degree from opposing parties and their lawyers. But another aspect of why it is important for lawyers and judges to take the duty to report misconduct so seriously is that the public, by and large, may not know, exactly, when a lawyer is
engaging in misconduct. Lawyers and judges often have a better idea of what lawyers are supposed to be doing, what rules they are supposed to be following, and are in a better position to evaluate what they are seeing. So we do get some, and I am
hoping that the judges feel comfortable doing this and I encourage them to do so.
Int: What are the levels of discipline an attorney could get? Slease: There are dismissals, including a dismissal with a
caution. Then there is something called an informal admonition, which is basically a private reprimand and remains confidential, unless a
lawyer has a subsequent charge and the admonition can be used as relevant evidence in the subsequent, similar charge. Then there are the levels of public discipline, which include a formal reprimand, public censure, suspension and
disbarment. And the Supreme Court, at any time in connection with any of the more serious discipline, or sometime in lieu of such discipline, can order probation where the lawyer has to serve under a supervising attorney for a period of time. It is not
uncommon in the more serious matters to see probation ordered. The probation is tailored to whatever the misconduct was, so, for example, if it was a trust account problem, the lawyer will have a supervising attorney who will help oversee the
trust account.
Int: And a disbarred attorney? I know in California it used to be that a disbarred attorney after five years could apply for readmission.
Slease: And that is true in most jurisdictions, and presently true in New Mexico. After five years you can reapply for readmission and you go through a reinstatement hearing. At that hearing, the lawyer now has the burden of proof by clear and
convincing evidence that he or she is fit to return to the practice of law, and won‘t be a risk to the public, and won‘t damage the integrity of the profession. Suspended lawyers also often have to apply for reinstatement and have the same burden.
Int: Do you think our audience, who would be predominantly defense lawyers, many of whom are
associated with firms, sometimes larger firms (and complaints of professionalism aside), may perceive that this is an issue of sole practitioners, right? What can you say to sort of disabuse them of that notion?
Slease: Statistically, it‘s not that this office is looking to
discipline sole practitioners, but statistically it does appear that more discipline falls on sole practitioners. I can only speculate on why that is. My speculation is that if you are a sole practitioner you might not have resources in place to assist you, such
as nobody to bounce ideas off of or help with a complicated case, or help manage a case load when it becomes too heavy. The larger firms can help because they have the resources in place. If you are a sole practitioner, that is not always the case. One
of the exciting things that the New Mexico Supreme Court and the State Bar have now put into place, it will start with the first bar exam class being sworn in on April 25, 2011, is a new mentorship program as part of the ―Bridge the Gap.‖ It is a mentorship
program in which newly admitted lawyers who have never practiced will be paired with a mentor lawyer in the community. So if you are a sole practitioner who is brand-new to practice, you can call your mentor and ask questions. It creates that resource
base. That‘s a long way around to answer your question which is we don‘t care who the lawyer is, where the lawyer comes from, what firm the lawyer works with, or what the lawyer‘s affiliations might be. If there is a complaint and if our investigation
reveals that it is warranted, then we go forward. We are not influenced by whether you are solo or not solo, a big firm or not a big firm, or, ―we can‘t believe that somebody from this firm would do that sort of thing‖—that doesn‘t color our judgment at all.
Int: Are all the hearings here in Albuquerque or do you have to travel all around the State?
Slease: We have to travel; the State is broken up into disciplinary districts and the rules require that the hearings be held at the district in which the misconduct purportedly took place. We are fortunate that we have a supportive bar across the
State who are willing to serve as hearing officers and reviewing officers and on the Board. We have a 12-member Board, and we have members from a variety of places in the State—Santa Fe, Roswell, Portales, and Albuquerque—all who want to be
involved in the process.
Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease Continued from Page 6
Defense News 8 Fall 2011
Interview of William (―Bill‖) Slease Continued from Page 7
Int: Are these people who are appointed, or do they apply for these positions?
Slease: The Board positions are applied for and the
appointments are made by the Supreme Court; that is, 11 of the 12 positions are appointed by the Supreme Court and one position is appointed by the State Bar. Ten are lawyers and two are non-lawyers. They do it purely for the protection of the
public and the love of the profession. And all of them make a substantial time commitment because, in addition to just coming and sitting at Board meetings, they also have to serve on the hearing panels and as reviewing officers. And so, it
is time consuming. They are a good group of people.
Int: What have you found to be the most rewarding aspect of your new position over the time you have been there?
Slease: I truly do think it is the staff that I am working with. They are very dedicated. I‘m confident that all
of the staff at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel are hard-working and have the right perspective. They really do approach every case with the protection of the public in mind, and make every effort to resolve cases as quickly as possible while
observing the necessary due process protections in the system. That is something that all of the Bar
needs to know—that there are hard-working people at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel who are trying to do their best to protect the public and
to make sure that the public is getting quality lawyers. They are a great group of people to work with; I am really fortunate.
Int: Do you have any parting words of wisdom or any advice for our readers, other than ―don‘t steal from your clients‖?
Slease: I don‘t know that I have any parting words...I feel
really fortunate to have the job and was very excited when I got selected. I enjoyed private practice, but I was also ready to do something that was a new challenge and I talked about the staff a lot because I do believe in them. But it goes really
beyond the staff at our office. The Supreme Court, the Board members, the reviewing officers, and the hearing officers—all of those people—everybody involved in the system, most of whom are volunteers—do a tremendous job, and we can‘t
thank them enough because we have lawyers and non-lawyers who are really interested in seeing the disciplinary system work and succeed. They take their responsibilities very seriously and they have been supportive during this transition. I feel
fortunate to be able to show up every day.
Int: Thank you very much for taking the time to meet
with us. Slease: I appreciate you asking me.
NMDLA Annual Meeting
October 7, 2011, 11:45 am—5:p.m.
(includes luncheon & cocktail
reception!)
1/2 Day Ethics & Professionalism CLE:
Reaching New Heights—Understanding the Practice of Law in the New World of 2012
2012 is predicted as the emergence of a new world. How will the lawyer of to-
morrow live in this new world? Join the NMDLA as it celebrates outstanding
achievements of the Defense Lawyer of the Year and the Young Defense Lawyer
of 2011, and looks at the challenges that the lawyers of 2012 and beyond face
in balancing work and life, dealing with the modern fact finder, and struggling
with ethical issues in discovery. 2.0 Ethics & Professionalism MCLE Credits
INTERVIEW OF THE HONORABLE MARK T. SANCHEZ, F IFTH JUDICIAL D ISTRICT COURT
I n t e r v i e w e d b y B r y a n E v a n s , A t w o o d , M a l o n e , T u r n e r & S a b i n , P . A .
Bryan Evans ("BE") Judge Sánchez, this is Bryan Evans. How are you
today?
Hon. Mark T. Sanchez ("MS") I‘m doing fine, Bryan. It‘s good to be here.
BE: I guess to start off with, if you wouldn‘t mind telling us a little bit about your background.
MS: All right. I was born in Belén, New Mexico and was educated in the public schools there, and then from there I went to Harvard University where I
received an A.B. in English and American Literature and Language. Then I spent time in Barcelona at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. That‘s not the central university; the one I attended is outside of town. While in Barcelona, I worked at an
international law firm. Then I went to law school at Drake University where I received a degree in law. I returned to New Mexico and was then in practice for 23 years with Gary Don Reagan in Hobbs.
BE: And, so your entire time in practice was in Hobbs. MS: That is correct. For a short time I was in practice
with my brother in Belén, my hometown.
BE: What would you say is the thing that you miss the
most about having been in private practice now that you have moved on to the bench?
MS: Well, I miss the interaction with the clients. In my position as judge, I don‘t speak to people with legal problems except in a courtroom setting and,
of course, that‘s very formal, so I don‘t get to know them as well as I would in private practice. I really enjoyed my relationships with my clients, so I miss not getting to know litigants as well as I did as a lawyer. I also miss my conversations with fellow
lawyers. I occasionally run into lawyers in social settings, but not to the extent that I did when I was in practice, and so I miss the day-to-day communications that I had with other lawyers and comparing notes about cases and discussing
what‘s going on in the courts and that kind of thing.
BE: Are there any parts of being in private practice that you do not miss so much?
MS: I do not miss the matter of billable hours. I don‘t miss the matter of making arrangements for
payment of fee bills and that kind of thing. When I was in practice, I enjoyed being a lawyer. Now that I am a judge, there are things that I miss, but
keeping track of the finances of private practice is not one of them.
BE: The next question I have is probably the same one that you were asked a hundred different ways when you applied—what prompted you to apply for a judgeship position?
MS: I had been interested for some time in becoming a
judge. I always liked the business of solving problems, of considering problems, of considering different ways of approaching and solving a problem, of analyzing it, of synthesizing information, and of arriving at a conclusion. Those
are the interests that led me to the bench.
BE: An effort to solve problems with the litigants in
front of you. MS: That‘s correct.
BE: Had you known for some time that when the opportunity arose you would consider seeking a judgeship or did that come to you more suddenly?
MS: No, I had known for some time. I had been
following the courts for some time and had made a decision years ago that I would be making an effort to become a judge.
BE: Are there any of the judges that you appeared in front of while you were in practice that you would consider to have been your inspiration or role models for what you hoped to be once you got on
the bench?
The Honorable Mark T. Sanchez
Defense News 11 Fall 2011
MS: Well, I think just about every judge that I appeared
before had qualities that I wanted to emulate when I became a judge. There are a number of people whose abilities I admired. I think that we are graced with a very competent bench and a very competent bar. I enjoyed learning from colleagues
when I was a practitioner, and I enjoyed learning from judges when I was a practitioner. Now that I am on the bench, I still enjoy watching attorneys in action, and I also enjoy observing—although I observe to a lesser degree than I did before—ways
that judges dispose of cases. From time to time I do go into other courtrooms to observe. Now when I read the bar bulletin, I read it in an effort to avoid error; this is different from the way I read it before I became a judge. In criminal cases, especially, I
see practices employed by other judges in the conduct of proceedings that I have incorporated into my own practices. It‘s important to make a clear record in the event of an appeal but more importantly because it helps to safeguard the
rights of the parties. Judges before me have traveled the same ground I‘m covering now, so it only makes sense to take advantage of their experience.
BE: If you could pick one or two aspects of the judge position that you have now, as you‘ve seen it so far, that you like the most, what would those be?
MS: I very much enjoy hearing oral argument done by lawyers who are prepared, who have a good grasp of the facts and who have a good grasp of the law. I find that one of the most satisfying experiences. Another experience that I derive a lot of
satisfaction from is watching a jury decide a case.
BE: Sure.
MS: It‘s very interesting to see how jurors work around problems. I don‘t actually see them deliberate, but I can tell from the questions that they ask that they are very engaged in the process of listening and deciding. Issues become important to them, and
often the issues that interest them are the same issues that legally are at the center of the case. They appear to be concerned about doing justice, about the competing rights and interests of the parties. The process is very interesting,
informative, and educational. It gives you a view of our society as a whole. And you can come away with a view that gives you confidence in the people and in the process. By and large, our jurors take their responsibilities seriously. It appears to me
that they are trying to understand a case and trying to decide fairly. And sometimes they come up with creative solutions, and solutions that demonstrate great intelligence and understanding. You can see these qualities in the verdict and in the questions
that jurors ask; the great majority of the questions are relevant and important.
BE: The cases that I‘ve tried to a jury, Judge, I‘ve noticed the same thing—jurors coming in as part of a panel—a lot of them, as you might imagine,
don‘t particularly want to be there, and they have lots of things to do in their lives, but once they‘re selected and kind of get around the idea that a few days of their time will be taken up with this, they seem to take the responsibility extremely
seriously, and, and all of them, regardless of their background, make a concerted effort to do a good job. I take it that‘s what you‘ve observed as well?
MS: Yes, Bryan, that‘s exactly right. And in my experience on the bench, I don‘t see the people go
in there with any kind of agenda or program. I find that refreshing, and I am very favorably impressed with the jurors.
BE: Is there any part of the job as you‘ve seen it so far that you don‘t like as much or wish could be different?
MS: I like to keep my docket running smoothly, and I
sometimes find frustrating the great number of motions for continuance that I am asked to grant. Now, I understand that the need for a continuance will sometimes arise unexpectedly, such as when a litigant, witness, or attorney has an accident or an
emergency. So I allow for the possibility that a continuance is justified. I should add that I am only mildly frustrated with that aspect of the practice.
BE: Sure. MS: But, I like my docket to run smoothly, and I like to
dispose of my cases on a timely basis.
BE: What advice, based upon your time, both as an attorney and now some on the bench, would you
give to attorneys appearing before you? MS: Come in prepared. There‘s nothing that impresses
a judge more, I think, than good preparation. Also, it‘s nice when the attorneys demonstrate some grace and some finesse or even enthusiasm. Those
qualities can make the case more interesting for me. Now, the most important things are the facts and law of the case, so if a lawyer presents those aspects competently, then no one can claim that he or she hasn‘t met the minimum requirements. But what demonstrates accomplishment beyond mere
competence is a sound knowledge of the case delivered with sensitivity, by which I mean an awareness of competing interests and the ability to meet them and reconcile them, master them skillfully. The ability to respond appropriately to
changing circumstances shows great intelligence. Watching that can be more engaging than the finest movie. Another thing that demonstrates accomplishment is the ability to anticipate and then dispel doubt. The art of persuasion can
involve so many talents, the ability to narrate a story, to turn a phrase, to repeat and vary themes, to hold the imagination of the listener, to impress with logic and reason, to appeal to sensibilities about justice and the like, or even to appeal to
human nature. I‘m not suggesting that a judge should rule on the basis of emotion because I don‘t
Interview of Hon. Mark T. Sanchez Continued from Page 10
Defense News 12 Fall 2011
think that‘s correct. But I do think that there are ways of making a case attractive to the judge,
perhaps because it seems to have logic or because the facts are believable. There are many ways to impress a judge, and it is gratifying when lawyers put devices such as these to work for them.
BE: I‘m going to have to ask you to refresh my understanding, with the docket there in Lea County, is that divided into categories among the
judges or are you purely general jurisdiction judges who take all comers?
MS: Well, I take all kinds of cases, but the docket has been divided to some degree by category. I handle a lot of the domestic cases, which includes
domestic violence and support. I think that Judge Clingman does a lot of the abuse, neglect, and juvenile cases. Every now and then, I‘ll receive one of those cases. The criminal and general civil docket appears to be divided equally among all
three judges.
BE: The reason I ask that is I wanted to ask you to
describe, if you could, what adjustments you‘ve made or undergone in transitioning to now handling a significant number of criminal cases.
MS: Well, I‘ve had to keep up with the research, since I did not have a heavy criminal practice when I was a
lawyer. But I enjoy research; for me it is very satisfying. The criminal field is one of the few areas that regularly deals with fundamental constitutional rights. Before I went on the bench, I had several criminal cases that I prepared for trial
—that experience helped to refresh my skills in the field of criminal law. But I often find myself hitting the books.
Interview of Hon. Mark T. Sanchez Continued from Page 11
BE: In your years in the law, both as an attorney and now as a judge, what changes have you seen in the practice of law, either positive changes or negative
changes? MS: Well, the practice of law has become more and
more automated, and I think that that‘s a positive thing. As you know, it‘s very likely that we will, within a few years, do away with paper pleadings
altogether, and only electronic versions of pleadings will be filed. And, with the advent of this technology, I think that there is a possibility that pleadings will become more and more standardized, which is kind of interesting, because
as you know, under the common law, pleadings were formulaic, and now under notice pleading, a statement of the facts with allusions to the law is what a judge usually has to deal with in the first instance. But I expect to see that the pleadings will
become more and more standardized with the proliferation of information electronically to a wide base of people. The internet has put enormous textual resources at the fingertips of the common man.
BE: I suspect you‘re probably exactly right. That‘s the way the federal courts are now and I think that‘s
the way the state courts are definitely headed. Judge, that‘s all I have. I want to thank you very much for your time today and wish you the best of luck.
MS: Well, thank you, Mr. Evans, and thank you for your
kindness in thinking of me for this interview.
BE: Very good.
MS: Have a good afternoon.
Thank You Firm Contributors
Allen, Shepherd, Lewis, Syra & Chapman, P.A.
Bannerman & Johnson, P.A.
Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C.
Civerolo, Gralow, Hill, & Curtis, P.A.
Gallagher, Casados and Mann, P.C.
Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P.
Keleher & McLeod, P.A.
Mason, Isaacson & Macik, P.A.
Modrall Sperling
Narvaez Law Firm, P.A.
Riley, Shane & Keller, P.A.
Rodey Law Firm
Sandenaw Law Firm, P.C.
Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick, P.C.
To be recognized for annual contributions, contact [email protected]
Introduction In City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc., the New Mexico Court of Appeals declined to draw a distinction between insurance contracts and other types of contracts containing indemnification agreements when determining whether a contractual duty
to defend has been triggered. 2009–NMCA–081, 146 N.M. 717, 213 P.3d 1146. The BPLW Court effectively treated design professionals and contractors as insurers by holding that the duty to defend in the construction contracting context is triggered when ―the allegations in
the complaint fall within the terms of the contract.‖ Arguably, the result in BPLW was a product of a broad construction of the phrase ―arising out of‖ and the specific contract language, which the Court construed to mean that an indemnitor owes a duty to defend an indemnitee
even if only the indemnitee is alleged to be negligent, as long as the cause of action arises from the alleged negligent act, error, or omission of the indemnitor.
In Holguin v. Fulco Oil Services, LLC, 149 N.M. 98, 245 P.3d 42, 2010 -NMCA- 091, the Court held that the language of the 2003 construction anti-indemnity statute
and New Mexico case law permits enforcement of an indemnity clause to the extent it requires indemnification for the indemnitor's negligence and that an indemnification agreement is ―only void and unenforceable as to liability for the indemnitee's own percentage of negligence.‖ Holguin, at ¶40. However, in
Holguin, due to a settlement of the underlying tort claims, the Court remanded for a determination of the parties‘ respective percentages of liability in order to enforce the indemnity clauses as to negligence on the part of the indemnitors. Therefore, Holguin requires a
determination by the fact finder before the duty to indemnify arising under a contractual indemnity provision can finally be determined. The question is whether a similar factual determination is required in order to determine whether a duty to defend is triggered.
Procedural Posture
The district court had granted summary judgment and held that indemnity clauses in service contracts that obligated one party to indemnify another against all
claims, even those based in part on the negligence of the indemnitee, were ―in violation of New Mexico's oilfield and construction anti-indemnity statutes and were, therefore, void as against public policy.‖ Id., ¶1. The Court of Appeals reversed under the oilfield anti-indemnity statute,
but affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment under the construction anti-indemnity statute.
Factual Background
Southern Union Gas Services, Ltd. (Southern Union) owned and operated a gas processing facility in Lea County, New Mexico. Fulco Oil Services, L.L.C., 3–K Oil and Gas Services, L.L.C., and Ruth Elkins, d/b/a Projects, Etc. (collectively, ―the Contractors‖) were subcontractors of
Southern Union under a ―Service Contract‖ hired to perform work at Southern Union's processing plant.
Southern Union's processing plant received gas from a number of separate gas wells through a series of pipelines. At Southern Union‘s plant, the gas was run through a pressurized system called a ―slug catcher‖ that
removed condensate and other particulates from the gas. The slug catcher required periodic cleaning in order to maintain its functionality. Southern Union was sued for personal injuries sustained by an employee of one of the Contractors (Danny Holguin) during the cleaning of the
slug catcher.
In response to Holguin's suit, Southern Union sought
indemnity against its Contractors pursuant to the indemnity clauses in the Service Contracts. The Contractors sought summary judgment arguing the indemnity clauses were void and unenforceable under New Mexico anti-indemnity statutes NMSA 1978, Section 56–7–
1 (2005) (the construction anti-indemnity statute) and NMSA 1978, Section 56–7–2 (2003) (the oilfield anti-indemnity statute). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Contractors, holding that the indemnity clauses were void, unenforceable, and against
the public policy of New Mexico.
The Court‘s Analysis The Contractors in Holguin entered into Service Contracts by which they agreed to indemnify Southern Union,
against all claims, damages, losses, liens, causes
of action, suits, judgments[,] and expenses, including attorney fees . . . of any person . . . arising out of, caused by or resulting from the performance of the work . . . caused in whole or in part by any act or omission, including
negligence, of the contractor . . . even if it is caused in part by the negligence or omission of any indemnitee.
New Mexico‘s construction anti-indemnity statute, NMSA 1978, Section 56–7–1 (2005), provides:
―[a] provision in a construction contract that requires one party to the contract to indemnify . . .
UPDATE ON NEW MEXICO ―INDEMNIFICATION‖ LAW
FOLLOWING HOLGUIN V. FULCO OIL SERVICES, LLC By Courtenay Keller, Riley, Shane & Keller, P.A.
Defense News 15 Fall 2011
the other party . . . against liability . . . caused by or resulting from, in whole or in part, the negligence . . . of the indemnitee . . . is void,
unenforceable and against the public policy of the state.‖
NMSA, Section 56–7–1(A).
Southern Union argued that even if the anti-indemnity statutes preclude enforcement of its indemnity clause insofar as it requires the Contractors to indemnify Southern Union for Southern Union's own negligence, the anti-indemnity statutes do not prohibit it from seeking
indemnification from the Contractors for the Contractors' negligence. Southern Union further asserted that a determination of the relative percentages of negligence of the Contractors and Southern Union had to be made by an appropriate fact finder and, therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate
In contrast, the Contractors argued that because the
indemnity clauses in the Service Contracts seek in part to indemnify Southern Union for its own negligence, the clauses must be held to be void and unenforceable in their entirety under Sierra v. Garcia, 106 N.M. 573, 575, 746 P.2d 1105, 1107 (1987). In Sierra the Supreme Court
declined to reform an indemnification clause to excise language that required indemnification for the indemnitee's own negligence in violation of Section 56–7–1. Sierra, 106 N.M. at 576, 746 P.2d at 1108.
However, as noted by the Holguin Court, Sierra was decided prior to the 2003 amendment to the construction anti-indemnity statute, which added the language
contained in that statute‘s subparagraph (B). Therefore, since the Service Contracts in Holguin were entered into in 2005 and 2006, they were governed by the 2003 version of the statute, which specifically permits enforcement of an indemnity clause to the extent that it provides for
indemnification from the indemnifying party's negligence. The Holguin Court held that the last segment of the Southern Union indemnity provision was void and unenforceable because it violates Section 56–7–1(A) by requiring the Contractors to indemnify Southern Union for
Southern Union's own negligence. However, under Section 56–7–1(B), the remainder of the indemnity clause that provides that the Contractors will indemnify Southern Union for claims based on the Contractors' negligence, was enforceable.
The Holguin Court also noted that permitting enforcement of an indemnity clause to the extent it
requires indemnification for the indemnitor's negligence is actually consistent with prior New Mexico case law in this area. In Guitard vs. Gulf Oil, the Court had held that the language in Section 56–7–2(A) ―which makes void and unenforceable any agreement which purports to indemnify
an indemnitee for injuries or death arising from the . . . concurrent negligence of the indemnitee means only that the indemnitee cannot contract away liability for his own
percentage of negligence.‖ Guitard, 100 N.M. at 361, 670 P.2d at 972 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Guitard Court noted
―[b]oth the operator and the subcontractor will have incentive to monitor the safety of the operation knowing that they will be responsible for their respective percentage of negligence[ ]‖, which would further ―two important public policies: the policy of promoting safety
at the work site and the policy favoring freedom of contract.‖ Id. at 362, 670 P.2d at 973.
Finally, the Holguin Court noted the public policy underpinnings of its holding in BPLW that a contractor ―was required to indemnify and defend the City of Albuquerque, pursuant to an indemnification clause in the contract between the parties, for any cause of action
arising out of the contractor's performance of the contract.‖ 2009–NMCA–081, ¶ 20, 146 N.M. 717, 213 P.3d 1146. ―We concluded that requiring the contractor to indemnify and defend the City for the contractor's alleged negligence does not violate the construction anti-
indemnity statute or the policy behind it.‖ Id. The Holguin Court ―held that such an interpretation of the contract was consistent with the requirements of the statute because the construction anti-indemnity statute is based on ‗a public policy promoting safety in construction projects by
holding each party to the contract accountable for injuries caused by its own negligence.‘‖ Id. ¶¶ 19–20.
Practical Considerations From a practical standpoint, liability insurance
policies are not subject to the anti-indemnity statute because under fundamental insuring concepts, the insurer is assuming the duty to indemnify as a matter of contract in return for a premium. The entire purpose of the contract is the insurer‘s assumption of the obligation to
indemnify. The corresponding duty to defend is closely tied contractually to the express duty to indemnify as stated and assumed in the insuring agreement. The primary problem with BPLW is that it stands for the proposition that contractual indemnitors owe a duty to
defend akin to the duty owed by liability insurers.
In contrast, the commercial reality is that in most
construction contracting situations, owners and/or general contractors rarely provide consideration for these types of defense and indemnity clauses. Rather, the consideration for the typical construction contract includes the cost of labor, materials, overhead, profit, and
tax. The contrast is significant because in the liability insurance context, the insured is paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, in exchange for the duty to defend and indemnify. Moreover, construction contracts, unlike
liability insurance contracts, are subject to the anti-indemnity statute. The objective behind the anti-indemnity statute arguably applies both to the duty to indemnify assumed by the subcontractor/architect/designer and the duty to defend. In effect, equating a
Update Continued from Page 14
Defense News 16 Fall 2011
subcontractor‘s duty to defend a general contractor with the duty of a liability insurer to defend its insured would effectively defeat the anti-indemnity statute because it
forces the subcontractor to defend the general contractor against claims brought directly against the general contractor for its own negligence.
Update Continued from Page 15
the hearing, after oral
argument. Another answer
stated that it is important to
listen to hints and questions
from the Bench about whether
further argument is necessary.
An attorney that ―knows her record and the law and can
clearly explain how the particular facts fit within the legal
concepts being argued‖ is a prime example of skills to
develop before oral argument.
Other answers discussed effective characteristics
they see during oral argument. Several answers noted that
it is important not to read or recite exactly what is already
in the briefs. Effective oral argument based on several of
the responses means truly discussing the issues of the
case with the judge(s). Answer questions when they are
asked. Judges do not want a lawyer to tell them that they
will answer the question later in the hearing. Citations to
authority on the subject are helpful during oral argument.
Several of the answers stated that candor (providing
―straight answers‖) with the court in answering questions,
is a particularly effective characteristic. When attorneys
are willing to admit weaknesses in their case, and then
address those weaknesses during argument, this shows
that the attorney is not trying to hide anything from the
court. Brevity and ―real logic‖ are important. ―Stating a
conclusory statement several times means much less than
explaining how something makes sense only one or two
ways. ‖Thank you to the judges who participated in
answering questions and providing their unique insight. If
you have any questions that you would like presented to
our judges, please send the questions to the New Mexico
Defense Lawyers Association.
THE JUDGES‘ FORUM Compiled and Reported on by Andrew Johnson, Johnson Law Firm, L.C.
The answers received in response to the 3rd Quarter Judges‘ Forum questions provide valuable information about how we may be better advocates for our clients. Thank you to all of the judges for your generous participation.
The responses to the questions for the 3rd Quarter
Judges‘ Forum were very candid and very insightful. Thank
you to all the members of the judiciary who participated.
The first question this quarter was ―now that you are
a judge, if you were able to go back, what changes would
you make in your prior practice?‖ The answers varied from
advice on how to be better individuals, to how to be better
as an attorney. Judge James Browning candidly stated that
he would change how he treated opposing attorneys early
in his career, saying he wishes he ―had been more kind
and considerate.‖ He continued by saying that as he
became more experienced and comfortable in his
profession, he learned to be more gentle with opposing
counsel. Another judge stated that he would have worked
more with other associates because of the lonely nature of
the work. Yet another judge said that he would have spent
more time as an active participant in bar and public
events. One judge openly admitted that he/she would
have accepted the clerkship that was offered after
graduating from law school. Other responses suggested
actions relative to dealing with judges. One judge would
have sent courtesy copies of motions and briefs directly to
the assigned judge for review before a hearing. Another
judge would have worked harder at preparing jury
instructions before trial.
The second question for this quarter was ―what
stands out to you as effective characteristics of an
attorney during oral argument?‖ Many answers focused on
preparation in order to assure effective oral argument.
Several of the answers mentioned how important it is to
simply be prepared. One answer suggested that an
attorney needs to show up to court with something to say,
and went on to state that in his experience, the best time
to decide on a motion or issue was immediately following
In the wake of BPLW, insofar as the duty to defend is tied to the duty to indemnify, Holguin may provide a measure of protection for contractors facing demands for defense
because it suggests that construction of an indemnity clause requires a determination by an appropriate fact finder of the parties‘ respective percentages of liability.
Defense News 17 Fall 2011
The Rule Earlier this year, the New Mexico Supreme Court created the Bridge the Gap: Transitioning into the Profession Program (―BTG Program‖), which requires all lawyers admitted to practice law in New Mexico after April 6, 2011 to enroll and participate.1 Under the new rule, a
newly admitted lawyer must enroll in the BTG Program within thirty (30) days after admission to the bar. The new lawyer is then paired with a pre-approved mentor lawyer. Together, the new lawyer and mentor lawyer must complete the BTG Program by December 31 of the first
full calendar year following the date that the new lawyer is admitted to the bar.2
Reasons for the Program The BTG Program was developed for the following
reasons:
To combat the difficulties new lawyers face when transitioning from law school to actually practicing law.
To help combat the increased perception that lawyers are unprofessional and uncivil towards each other.
To help combat the fact that an increasing number of new lawyers are leaving the profession due to the
dissatisfaction with the practice of law.
To combat the fact that a great number of minorities are leaving the profession.3
Goals of the Program As a result of these difficulties in the law profession, the goals of the BTG Program are:
To train new lawyers during their first years of practice in professionalism, ethics and civility.
To create a sense of pride and integrity in the legal profession and involvement in the organized bar.
To assist new lawyers in beginning the process of acquiring the practical skills and judgment necessary to practice in a highly competent manner.
To provide a means for all New Mexico attorneys to learn the importance of collegial relationships, organizational mentoring, including the building of developmental networks and long-term, multiple
professional relationships.
To encourage the use of best practices and highest ideals in the practice of law.4
THE NEW MENTOR PROGRAM IN A NUTSHELL
By Nancy Franchini, Esq., Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C.
CLE Credit for a Year By volunteering to be a mentor, you not only help improve the legal profession—you also receive one compliance year‘s worth of continuing legal education credits every other compliance year. The thought behind this part of the rule was to avoid attorneys acting as
mentors year after year and not taking any continuing legal education courses.5 Certainly, one part of being a good mentor is continuing to keep current your knowledge of the law.
Requirements to Become a Mentor To become a mentor, a lawyer must:
have seven years of legal practice, with at least five years of legal practice in New Mexico;
be registered active and in good standing with the State Bar;
not have formal discipline imposed within the last seven years;
have legal malpractice insurance in an amount of at least $100,000/$300,000, if in private practice; and
submit a mentor application and be approved by the Commission on Professionalism and the Supreme Court.6
Pairing of New Lawyers with Mentors A new lawyer can be placed with a mentor of the new lawyer‘s/mentor‘s choosing as long as the mentor has been approved. A new lawyer may be mentored by a
lawyer within the new lawyer‘s firm/organization or with a lawyer outside the new lawyer‘s firm/organization. Firms that have in-house mentor programs must agree to participate in the BTG Program in accordance with its rules and regulations.7
Mentor Duties Once approved as a mentor, the mentor must attend the BTG Program Training Orientation either in person or on the internet. A mentor must meet with the new lawyer
at least two (2) hours per month, for a minimum of 12 hours during the year of the mentoring relationship, which must include at least seven (7) in-person meetings.8
The BTG Program is split into quarters whereby each quarter has a theme.9
Effective Communication and Presentation Skills for Attorneys (November 11, 2011)
Civil Rights 2011 (December 2, 2011)
2011 CLE Schedule
First Quarter-The Legal Community and the Community
You Live In In this quarter, an organized bar association meeting is attended, the new lawyer is introduced to the pro bono, civic and charitable opportunities in the area, the rules of professional conduct, the unwritten rules of civility and
etiquette among lawyers, and the State Bar dues form, and MCLE requirements are discussed.
Second Quarter-Personal and Professional Development and Ethics In this quarter, substance and mental health issues, how ethical and conflict of interest issues can be handled, and how to handle situations of another lawyer‘s
misconduct are discussed.
Third Quarter-Law Office Management and Practice of Law
In this quarter, practices to maintain client confidentiality and how to handle escrow and trust accounts are discussed.
Fourth Quarter-Client Communications, Advocacy and Negotiation In this quarter, the importance of client communication
is discussed including the responsibilities of the client and the lawyer in making decisions about the client‘s case.
In addition to these mandatory topics, each quarter has a number of elective topics to choose from that are to be covered. During the third and fourth quarters, substantive law electives (i.e. litigation and transaction handling, advocacy and litigation, alternative dispute resolution,
negotiation, client interviewing and counseling, criminal procedure, civil procedure, estate planning, probate, family law, juvenile law, business law, tax law, real estate law, employment law, patent law, trademark law, etc.) are also covered.
Resources The Supreme Court and State Bar have created an
excellent manual for mentors to use during the mentoring relationship that can be found on the State Bar website. Included in that manual is a section on conflicts and confidentiality for outside mentoring relationships. I encourage anyone considering becoming a mentor to
review the manual. Being a mentor in the BTG Program is a significant and worthwhile time commitment—as it should be.
Mentor Program Continued from Page 17
1 Rule 24-110 NMRA 2011. 2 Rule 24-110(A)(1) NMRA 2011. 3 Bridge the Gap Program-Mentor Orientation Manual, p.
5. This Manual can be found at www.nmbar.org under the Mentorship Program link. 4 Mentor Manual, at p. 4. 5 Rule 24-110(B)(2) NMRA 2011. 6 Mentor Manual, at p. 9. 7 Mentor Manual, at pp.24-25. 8 Mentor Manual, at p. 9 and p. 16. 9 Mentor Manual, at pp.34-39.
2011 NMDLA L A W Y E R O F
T H E Y E A R AW A R D S The New Mexico Defense Lawyers Association will hold its Annual Meeting on October 7, 2011, at
the Andaluz Hotel in Downtown Albuquerque.
Join us as we present NMDLA‘s 2011 Lawyer of the Year Awards.
Outstanding Lawyer of the Year Award will be
presented to Emily Franke of Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., and receiving the Young Lawyer of the Year Award will be Cody R. Rogers of Sandenaw
Law Firm. Recipients of both awards have, by their ethical, personal, and professional conduct, shown
exemplary achievement in the legal profession.
The luncheon meeting features speaker Craig A. Thompson, Esq., Partner, Venable, LLP, giving the
presentation: ―From Laudable to Legendary: How to Find Purpose in Law and Life.‖ Following the
luncheon and awards, NMDLA will be sponsoring a 2-hour Ethics/Professionalism CLE, and we will
