authority by finding contrary to the hearing committee that the attorney engaged in intentional misrepresentations). Instead, when a violation of Rule 16-804(C) is premised on conduct that is characterized as a misrepresentation, the conduct must be intentional. That said, not all allegations of intentional misrepresentation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. {20} The critical inquiry is whether the attorney’s conduct was driven by an improper motive or intent. See In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 25, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam) (providing that an ethical violation premised on the misappropriation of client funds requires a dishonest motive and cannot be based on negligent conduct); see also In re Obert, 336 Or. 640, 89 P.3d 1173, 1177-78 (2004) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if an attorney is accused of engaging
recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure recognizing that a misrepresentation need not be driven by an improper motive and does not require an intent to commit fraud holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding that improper motive is element of bad faith holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested