## Facts

- Robert Richards, a New Mexico attorney, was involved in underlying civil litigation in which he largely represented himself.
- During that litigation, a dispute arose about deposition-related motions; the trial court held a hearing and awarded the opposing party lost wages and attorney’s fees over Richards’ objection.
- On appeal, Richards filed a brief that quoted the trial-court hearing transcript to support his claim about the scope and basis of his objection.
- In reproducing the colloquy, Richards omitted part of the dialogue between himself and the trial judge.
- Richards did not mark or disclose the omission (e.g., by ellipses or other notation), and the omission changed the apparent meaning of what occurred at the hearing in a way favorable to his appellate argument.
- Disciplinary counsel brought two counts alleging violations of Rule 16-303 (candor toward the tribunal) and related rules.
- The hearing committee and disciplinary board rejected Count I (no knowing failure to disclose a material fact) but sustained Count II (knowing misrepresentation of material fact by edited quotation).
- The disciplinary board recommended public censure; Richards sought a hearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court under Rule 17-316.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the disciplinary board’s finding that Richards knowingly made a false statement of material fact to an appellate court by omitting unmarked portions of a transcript quotation, violating Rule 16-303.
2. Whether Richards showed a sufficient basis to require the Supreme Court to grant a hearing under Rule 17-316 to review the disciplinary recommendation.
3. Whether public censure was an appropriate sanction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court adopted the disciplinary board’s findings and conclusions sustaining Count II.
- The Court determined the unmarked omission from the transcript quotation constituted a knowing misrepresentation of material fact in an appellate brief, violating Rule 16-303.
- The Court denied Richards’ request for a hearing, concluding he failed to justify discretionary review beyond the written record.
- The Court imposed the recommended discipline of public censure under the governing disciplinary rules.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer violates the duty of candor to the tribunal by knowingly making a false statement of material fact in a filing, including by selectively quoting the record in a manner that materially misleads the court.
- Omitting material portions of a transcript quotation without indicating the omission can constitute an affirmative misrepresentation, not merely poor citation practice, when it alters the meaning of the record.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court has discretion under the disciplinary rules to grant or deny a requested hearing and may adopt the disciplinary board’s findings and recommended sanction based on the written record.
- Public censure is an authorized sanction for misconduct involving a breach of candor to the court.

## Conclusion

The New Mexico Supreme Court publicly censured Richards for violating Rule 16-303 after finding he knowingly misrepresented the trial-court record in an appellate brief by omitting unmarked portions of a transcript quotation, and it denied his request for a further hearing.


In re Richards, 943 P.2d 1032 (N.M. 1997)