On Thursday, January 12, 2023, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico ordered the reprimand of Albuquerque attorney Ross Perkal for professional misconduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Ross Perkal, Esq.” and was brought by the Assistant Disciplinary Counsel under Disciplinary No. 2022-03-4511.
The Specification of Charges alleged that Perkal violated Rules 16-101, 16-404(A), and 16-804(D) of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct, by:
failing to represent a client competently;
emailing threats with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass. . . or burden a third person; and
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The rules of professional conduct can be found online at this link.
According to court documents, Perkal was alleged to have committed misconduct in his representation of a tenant in a landlord-tenant dispute when he wrote numerous inappropriate emails for his clients to give to the landlord. Such emails contained highly offensive, and threatening language that was highlighted and written in capital letters.
The Specification of Charges states:
“On May 20, 2020, at 8:53 a.m., early in his representation of the tenants, Respondent composed an overly aggressive and threatening email in all CAPS, for one of the tenants to email to Mr. Vanis, as if the tenants had written it. By way of example, the email included:
LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, MR. PERKAL IS GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO APPOINT A JURY OF 12 OF OUR PEERS, TO SEE FIRST-HAND US CRY, WAIL, TREMBLE AND GEEL BRUTALIZES BY YOUR INFANTILE, SHAMEFUL, SHOCKING, OFFENSIVE BEHAVIORS.”
The Specification of Charges continues:
“Also on May 20, 2020, before Respondent had communicated with Mr. Vanis, Respondent emailed the tenant that Mr. Vanis has “EVIL INTENT” and is “THE WORLD’S BIGGEST JERK” (Emphasis in original.) Respondent also suggested that Mr. Vanis might kill the tenants.”
The Specification of Charges further alleges:
“The email quoted above was embedded within an email that Respondent sent to Mr. Vanis on May 13, 2020, at 12:29 p.m., in which Respondent stated:
I AM ON THE WAY TO APD NOW TO FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS AND I WILL REQUEST AN ARREST WARRANT BE ISSUED AND THAT YOU BE APPREHENED (sic) ASAP.”
A Conditional Agreement Admitting the Allegations and Consenting to Discipline dated May 11, 2022, was filed by Perkal setting forth Perkal’s admission of the allegations and his consent to a formal reprimand.
The agreement was approved by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel. Thereafter, the Hearing Committee issued its Recommendation of Acceptance of Perkal’s conditional agreement to the Disciplinary Board.
In light of the foregoing factual allegations, Perkal’s admission of misconduct, and upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation of acceptance, the Court accepted and approved Perkal’s conditional agreement and thereby formally reprimanded Perkal.
In formally reprimanding Perkal, the Court stated:
“A lawyer’s correspondence should be measured and factually based. Zealousness in representing a client should not be displayed with inappropriately emotional expressions. Expressions of a lawyer’s personal anger are counterproductive and not in the client’s best interests.”
The disposition reads:
“You are hereby formally reprimanded for these acts of misconduct pursuant to Rule 17-206(A)(5) of the Rules Governing Discipline. The formal reprimand will be filed with the Supreme Court in accordance with 17-206(D) and will remain part of your permanent records with the Disciplinary Board, where it may be revealed upon any inquiry to the Board concerning any discipline ever imposed against you.”
Mr. Ross Perkal practices in Albuquerque as a business attorney. He earned his law degree from the University of New Mexico School of Law, graduating in 1975. According to Avvo, Perkal has been admitted to the State Bars of New Mexico and Colorado. His info can also be found on LinkedIn.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
