In re Richards
New Mexico Supreme Court
943 P.2d 1032 (1997)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Attorney Robert Richards represented himself in a lawsuit against Arthur Adair involving an incident in a nightclub. When Richards noticed a deposition of a nightclub representative, no representative appeared. Richards filed a show-cause motion directed to the nightclub. Adair and his attorney, George Scarborough, filed a motion requesting lost wages and attorney’s fees for the time wasted preparing for and attending the scheduled deposition. The court held a hearing and awarded Adair lost wages and fees over Richards’s objection. Richards appealed, alleging he objected to hearing that motion on the same day as his show-cause motion, and submitted a hearing transcript. However, in his appellate brief, Richards quoted an objection based on Scarborough purportedly representing adverse parties, used ellipses to omit the grounds, and said he had objected on notice grounds instead. The disciplinary board charged Richards with violating the ethics rule that requires candor to the court. Richards claimed he meant to object on both grounds but the trial judge interrupted him and that a party need only make an objection known to the court to preserve the question for appeal. From that Richards argued that the trial judge knew he was objecting to hearing Scarborough’s motion that day because the judge had said she was going to hear it. The disciplinary board nonetheless found Richards had knowingly made a false statement to the appellate court in violation of the ethics rule and recommended public censure. Richards appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.