skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


New Mexico Legal Ethics

1.3 Rule 1.3 Diligence

1.3:100 Comparative Analysis of New Mexico Rule

 

1.3:101   Model Rule Comparison

NMR 16-103 is identical to MR 1.3.  The 2008 amendments left NMR 16-103 unchanged.

The 2008 Committee Commentary to NMR 16-103 does not include ABA Comment 5, which provides that a solo practitioner’s duty of diligence may require him or her to prepare a plan that designates another competent lawyer to handle client matters in the event of death or disability.

1.3:102   Model Code Comparison

 

1.3:200 Diligence and "Zeal"

In Matter of Bristol, 2006-NMSC-041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905, the Supreme Court found an attorney was deserving of public reprimand for his unethical behavior in violation of NMR 16-103 because he failed to accurately disclose to a bankruptcy court the extent of a debtor’s interest in a house. 

In State v. Zamarripa, 145 N.M. 402, 2009-NMSC-001, 199 P.3d 846 (2009), an attorney was acting diligently under NMR 16-103 when, after his objection to the admissibility of certain evidence was overruled, he relied on that evidence to make his own case.

1.3:300 Promptness