In Re Rael

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: April 21, 2025

No. S-1-SC-40711

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
JSC Inquiry No. 2024-016

IN THE MATTER OF
HON. MICHAEL G. RAEL,
Questa Municipal Court

The New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission
Phyllis A. Dominguez
Marcus J. Blais
Albuquerque, NM

for Petitioner

Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC
Luis E. Robles
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondent

PUBLIC CENSURE

PER CURIAM.

{1} This matter came before this Court on December 20, 2024, pursuant to the filing
of a petition to accept the Stipulation Agreement and Consent to Discipline (Stipulation)
between the Judicial Standards Commission (Commission) and Hon. Michael G. Rael, a
municipal court judge in Questa, New Mexico.

{2} We granted the petition and accepted the terms of the Stipulation, including
Judge Rael’s consent to the issuance of a public censure. We now publish this public
censure in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin in accordance with our order, the
Stipulation, and Rule 27-401(A)(4), (B) NMRA.

I. BACKGROUND
{3} A complaint against Judge Rael was filed with the Commission. The
Commission’s initial investigation included an informal conference which allowed Judge
Rael to personally discuss the allegations with the Commission. The Commission and
Judge Rael entered into the Stipulation after that informal conference. As part of the
Stipulation, Judge Rael admitted committing willful misconduct based on the following
facts:

A. On or about August 25, 2023, Judge Rael abused the prestige of
judicial office when he repeatedly invoked his judicial title while speaking
to officers who were investigating a car accident in which he was involved
specifically referring to himself as “Judge Rael” and stated to officers that
he was the judge in Questa.

B. On or about August 25, 2023, Judge Rael failed to follow the law
when he admitted to officers investigating the car accident in which he
was involved, that he was driving 55 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour
zone.

Stipulation at 2.

{4} Judge Rael agrees that the above-listed conduct violates the following Rules of
the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 21-101 NMRA (requiring compliance with the law),
Rule 21-102 NMRA (promoting confidence in the judiciary), and Rule 21-103 NMRA
(avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office). Judge Rael also agrees that the
admitted misconduct in office is sufficient for this Court to impose discipline pursuant to
Article VI, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution. As discipline, Judge Rael agreed
to receive a public censure to be published in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin.
For the reasons discussed below, we issue this public censure.

II. DISCUSSION

{5} Article VI, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution creates the Judicial
Standards Commission and provides that “any justice, judge or magistrate of any court
may be disciplined or removed for willful misconduct in office.” We have defined willful
misconduct in office as “improper and wrong conduct of a judge acting in his official
capacity done intentionally, knowingly, and, generally, in bad faith. It is more than a
mere error of judgment or an act of negligence.” In re Locatelli, 2007-NMSC-029, ¶ 8,
141 N.M. 755, 161 P.3d 252 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In imposing
discipline, “[t]here need not be clear and convincing evidence to support each and every
one of the Commission’s evidentiary findings. Rather, we must be satisfied by clear and
convincing evidence that there is willful judicial misconduct which merits discipline.” In
re Castellano, 1995-NMSC-007, ¶ 37, 119 N.M. 140, 889 P.2d 175.

{6} Judge Rael admitted that the conduct described in the Stipulation violated Rules
21-101, 21-102, and 21-103. Stipulation at 2. While a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct alone may not require the imposition of discipline, a violation does provide
evidence of misconduct. Locatelli, 2007-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 7-8. We agree that the
stipulated facts support the conclusion that Judge Rael willfully violated Rules 21-101,
21-102 and 21-103, and for that reason, he should be formally censured.

{7} The preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct states, “An independent, fair, and
impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice.” Rule 21-001(A) NMRA. To
promote the public’s trust and to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system,
“[j]udges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times and avoid both
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives.”
Rule 21-001(B). In violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Rael failed to uphold
the dignity of judicial office and behaved in a manner that undermines public confidence
in the integrity and professionalism of the judiciary.

{8} Rule 21-101 requires a judge to “respect and comply with the law, including the
Code of Judicial Conduct.” Rule 21-102 requires a judge to “act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary and [to] avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” “Actual
improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of th[e] Code. The test
for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds
a perception that the judge violated th[e] Code.” Id. comm. cmt. 5.

{9} Judge Rael’s actions violated Rules 21-101 and 21-102. Judge Rael failed to
follow the Code’s precepts which require him to act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. See Rule 21-001(A), (B).
Judge Rael exceeded the posted speed limit on a highway and, when talking with law
enforcement, continually referred to himself as holding the position of judge. These
actions violated the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, contrary to Rule 21-101.
Additionally, these actions created the appearance of impropriety by suggesting special
treatment by law enforcement, contrary to Rule 21-102.

{10} Rule 21-103 prohibits judges from “abus[ing] the prestige of judicial office to
advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others.” In particular, the
Committee Commentary to Rule 21-103 advises that “it would be improper for a judge
to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic
officials.” Judge Rael thus violated Rule 21-103 when he repeatedly referred to himself
as a judge, going so far as to say he was the judge in Questa and that he had held that
position for twenty-three years.

{11} Judge Rael agrees that these violations erode the public’s confidence, reflect
negatively on the New Mexico judiciary as a whole and are prejudicial to the effective
administration of justice. A public censure is therefore appropriate under the New
Mexico Constitution Article VI, Section 32, and the Court’s power of superintending
control under the New Mexico Constitution Article VI, Section 3. The imposition of
judicial discipline protects the public, preserves the public’s confidence in the integrity,
independence, and impartiality of the judicial system and enforces the standards of
conduct established by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
{12} Having considered the stipulated facts, violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and the accepted Stipulation, we hereby publicly censure Judge Rael for
willfully violating the established rules and standards that govern every New Mexico
judge’s conduct. We issue this public censure to ensure the public’s confidence in the
integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary and to remind all judges that
misconduct that erodes the public’s confidence will not be tolerated.

{13} For the foregoing reasons, Hon. Michael G. Rael is hereby publicly censured for
willful misconduct as set forth fully in the Stipulation, which this Court accepted,
adopted, and confirmed.

{14} IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice