By SHERRY ROBINSON
All She Wrote
© 2026 New Mexico News Services
Sen. Joe Cervantes was litigating House Bill 99, the medical malpractice reform bill, on the Senate floor, and he had plenty to say.
Two days earlier, Cervantes, a trial lawyer, had defanged HB 99 with amendments in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs. Now, in a floor fight, he was grilling Sen. Crystal Brantley, R-Elephant Butte, who was trying to strip the Cervantes amendments and restore HB 99 to its original language. Cervantes droned on about legal points in what Brantley characterized as “a back-and-forth, condescending debate.”
Cervantes said, “I don’t mean to embarrass you.”
Brantley responded with the bravado of someone who knows she’s on the right side: “You can’t embarrass me. I represent seven rural counties that don’t have good access to healthcare.”
HB 99, by Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, attempts to right a wrong by reforming a medical malpractice law passed in 2021 that has spiked doctors’ insurance premiums, multiplied malpractice lawsuits, amped up awards and settlements, and driven doctors from the state. With no limit on punitive damages, New Mexico has enriched trial lawyers as it threatens doctors with financial ruin.
Brantley’s amendment prevailed 25 to 17 with all the Republicans and a handful of Democrats voting in favor. The bill itself passed 40 to 2, and the governor has promised to sign.
It’s a victory for doctors and patients, but it came perilously close to failing. Democrats who opposed the bill tried repeatedly to ambush it. The most strident were Cervantes and his fellow trial lawyers Sen. Katy Duhigg, D-Albuquerque, and Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth of Santa Fe.
HB 99 not only exposed a lot of willful ignorance right up to the final vote, it spotlighted conflicts of interest.
Throughout the process, journalists have pointed out that Cervantes, Duhigg and Wirth make money suing doctors, but legislators were curiously silent on this conflict of interest.
Recently, Ed Williams of Searchlight New Mexico reported that Wirth had introduced House Bill 35 to fund an additional judge in the First Judicial District, where wrongful death and medical malpractice cases have proliferated in the last five years, according to a bill analysis.
Many of the cases originate outside Santa Fe, but lawyers are venue shopping for a court more likely to award big judgements. Lawyers can receive up to 40% of a verdict or settlement.
Wirth has been working with Cervantes to bring wrongful death cases in Santa Fe, Williams wrote. “In other words, the senator who introduced a measure to help clear more cases through the First Judicial District is himself contributing to the extra lawsuits making that bill necessary.”
On the Senate floor, Wirth said it was “preposterous” that he could benefit from the bill. He represents estates and is paid hourly regardless of outcome – unless the malpractice bill discourages the number of cases.
After that story ran in The Santa Fe New Mexican, readers were outraged.
Ouida MacGregor, a former Santa Fe city councilor, berated Wirth, Cervantes and Duhigg for mixing business and legislation and for killing malpractice reform last year. “In my opinion, Wirth and Cervantes have tarnished the legislative process, the legal profession and bamboozled the voters who believed they were honorable. Both men should resign.”
Simonich wrote: “Both senators should have excused themselves from every debate and all votes on a bill to cap punitive damages that juries can award in malpractice cases… Between the two of them, leadership was nowhere to be found.”
He called for their resignations and said the Senate should choose new leaders. Wirth’s courthouse bill died, but the controversy prompted the New Mexico Ethics Commission to opine that there is no legal basis to keep attorneys from voting on bills that affect their law practice. It’s up to the Senate and House to come up with rules.
According to Senate rules, “The members shall not use their offices for private gain and shall at all times maintain the integrity and discharge ethically the high responsibilities of their legislative positions. Full disclosure of real or potential conflicts of interest shall be a guiding principle for determining appropriate conduct of the members.”
In other words, senators decide for themselves if they have a conflict of interest. Do you trust these guardians of the chicken coop?