has to, but the resolution of that issue is for another day. The problem is that Mr. Klipstine’s alleged employment with Mr. Ching appears to violate the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Order that makes Melissa Honigmann/Sawyers his only “supervisor” and “employer, ” and requires him to obtain approval from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel if that employment changes. See In re Klipstine, No. 18 291 Jan. 30, 2012 Order reinstating Klipstine to the probationary practice of law. Further, the Tenth Circuit has approved of and adopted the standard that a suspended attorney may only “work as a law clerk, with respect to matters in this court with no contact with clients or the court, under the close supervision of an attorney who is admitted to practice before us.” In re Martin, 400 F.3d at 843 (<HOLDING>). The Panel adopts the In re Martin standard
holding that a suspended attorney should not be permitted to have contact with clients holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims holding an arrestee has the right to contact an attorney but not a specific attorney who is unavailable when called