Las Cruces Diocese Records Dispute: What Happened, What It Means, and What Your Rights Are
If you are a parishioner in Las Cruces or Mesilla reading about 60,000 financial records removed from the Diocese, a priest suspended, and a lawsuit quietly dismissed — you are not overreacting by wanting to know whether your personal information was in those files. You are doing exactly what a careful person does when an institution that holds your data loses control of it. We are going to tell you everything we know about how these situations work under New Mexico law, what the Diocese’s own statements reveal and what they do not, and what your actual rights are — whether you gave money in a collection plate, enrolled a child in a parish school, or simply have your name and address on a parish registry. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and contacting us is free and confidential. But the information here is real, it is specific to New Mexico, and it is written by trial lawyers who have spent decades holding institutions accountable for the records they keep and the duties they owe.
What Actually Happened in Las Cruces
Here is the timeline as publicly reported, and we are going to walk through it carefully because the sequence matters.
In September 2025, the Diocese of Las Cruces filed a civil lawsuit against a former employee named Georgina Lavery. The lawsuit alleged that Lavery had accessed financial records belonging to the Diocese days before she resigned her position on September 26, 2025 — the lawsuit was filed September 29, three days after her resignation. The Diocese asked the court for a temporary restraining order, demanded that Lavery destroy or return copies of the records, and demanded that she identify every person she had shared the financial information with.
The civil lawsuit made no mention of Fr. Christopher Williams, a priest at the Basilica of San Albino in Mesilla — the historic church just adjacent to Las Cruces in Doña Ana County. His name surfaced later, during depositions. Bishop Peter Baldacchino testified in the civil proceedings, and according to the Diocese’s own statements, it was through that deposition testimony that the Diocese discovered Williams’ alleged involvement in the removal of the 60,000 records.
On May 8, 2026, Baldacchino sent a letter to parishioners of San Albino announcing that Williams had been suspended from his clerical duties. The letter alleged that Williams had been party to the removal of the 60,000 financial records. Four days later, on May 12, the Diocese voluntarily dismissed its civil lawsuit against Lavery. A Diocese spokesperson stated the lawsuit was no longer needed because the data is now “safe from distribution” — but also indicated that ongoing civil and canonical investigations may result in additional legal action.
The Las Cruces Police Department confirmed it received a complaint from the Diocese in late 2025 related to the alleged theft of the records. As of public reporting, no criminal charges have been filed against Lavery or Williams. Williams has not returned to his duties at San Albino; his brother, the Rev. Michael Williams, was appointed by Bishop Baldacchino to fill in during his absence.
What This Case Actually Is — and What It Is Not
We are going to be straight with you, because that is what a real lawyer does.
This is not a personal injury case. No one was physically hurt. There is no car crash, no fall, no medical error, no catastrophic bodily harm. What exists here is an institutional civil dispute over financial records between a religious diocese and former employees — and potentially, a data-security question for every parishioner whose personal information may have been among those 60,000 records.
The Diocese’s dismissed lawsuit sought injunctive relief — a court order to stop the distribution of records and force their return or destruction. It did not seek money damages. That tells you something important: the Diocese’s primary concern was controlling where the information went, not recovering a financial loss. When the Diocese stated the data is “safe from distribution” and dismissed the suit, it was saying that the immediate threat of dissemination had passed — not that no harm occurred.
But here is where a separate set of rights may exist for you, the parishioner. The Diocese has declined to elaborate on what type of records were taken or whether they contained personal information of parishioners. That silence is itself significant. If those 60,000 records included your name, address, financial contribution history, bank account information for automatic giving, or any other personally identifiable information — then a different legal framework applies, one that runs not from the Diocese’s perspective as a plaintiff but from your perspective as someone whose data was entrusted to an institution that failed to safeguard it.
We handle catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. That is our primary practice. But the legal principles that govern institutional data accountability — the duty to safeguard information, the duty to notify when a breach occurs, the evidence-preservation clock — are principles we understand and apply. If your situation involves confirmed exposure of your personal data, the path forward looks different from a personal injury claim, and we will tell you honestly whether we are the right fit or whether you need a data-privacy specialist. What we will never do is pretend you have a bodily-injury claim when you do not.
The Institutional Structure: Who Is the Diocese of Las Cruces
The Diocese of Las Cruces is a juridic entity under the Roman Catholic Church’s governance structure — what lawyers call a canonical entity. It oversees Catholic parishes across southern New Mexico, including the Basilica of San Albino in Mesilla. Under civil law, it operates as a non-profit religious organization, and like any entity that collects and stores personal and financial information, it owes duties of care to the people whose data it holds.
The internal dynamics here matter. Public reporting connects the records dispute to a deeper division within the Diocese over the Neocatechumenal Way — a recognized formation and evangelization program within the Roman Catholic Church that began in Madrid in 1964 and has grown to an estimated one million adherents worldwide. A lay group called Voice of the Laity, composed of members from parishes within the Diocese, has raised concerns about the growing influence of the Neocatechumenal Way, a lack of transparency about its operations within parishes and local seminaries, and uncertainty over how diocesan finances and assets are being used.
Baldacchino’s letter indicated that Williams received the records from the “leader of the Voice of the Laity.” The civil suit did not name the Voice of the Laity or its leader, but the list of people served with deposition notices included known members of that group. This tells you the records dispute is not a simple theft — it is embedded in a broader conflict about institutional transparency, financial accountability, and who controls information within a religious organization.
From a legal standpoint, the institutional structure creates a layered defendant picture. If parishioner data was compromised, potential accountability runs through several channels: the Diocese as the entity that collected and stored the data, any individual who removed or distributed the data, and potentially any entity that received the data knowing or having reason to know it was obtained without authorization. The Diocese’s own statement that it may bring “additional lawsuits against those we believe are responsible” signals that the institutional finger-pointing is not over.
New Mexico’s Data Breach Notification Framework
New Mexico has a data breach notification statute — the New Mexico Data Breach Notification Act — that governs what an entity must do when it discovers that personal information has been acquired by an unauthorized person. We are stating this by its common name because the doctrine is what matters to you; the specific section number we will confirm against the current statute before we rely on it in any formal setting, because statutes get amended and you should never trust a section number from memory.
Here is what the framework does in plain language. When a business or organization that holds your personally identifiable information discovers a security breach — meaning your data was acquired by someone without authorization — it is generally required to notify you, the affected individual, that the breach occurred. The notification must describe what happened, what information was compromised, and what steps you can take to protect yourself. There are timelines attached to this duty, and there are exceptions for situations where law enforcement determines that notification would impede a criminal investigation.
“Our goal was to protect the data that was stolen from the Diocese. Everything possible has been accomplished to protect the data and this particular lawsuit is no longer needed. However, as we continue the investigation into the theft, we may bring additional lawsuits against those we believe are responsible.” — Diocese of Las Cruces statement, May 2026
That statement is the Diocese speaking about its own institutional interest — protecting its data from distribution. It is not the same as notifying you that your personal information was among the records. Those are two different duties, owed to two different parties, under two different legal frameworks. The Diocese dismissing its civil lawsuit because its data is “safe from distribution” does not satisfy any notification obligation it may owe to you if your personal information was in those 60,000 records.
If the records contained only internal Diocese financial documents — budgets, ledgers, operational accounts — without any parishioner personally identifiable information, then the data breach notification framework may not apply. But the Diocese has declined to say. And a religious organization that collects tithes, processes donations, maintains parish registries with names and addresses, and runs schools with enrollment records holds a vast amount of personal data. The question of what was in those 60,000 files is the question that determines whether you have a separate legal interest in this matter.
What Concerned Parishioners Should Do Right Now
If you are a parishioner of the Diocese of Las Cruces — especially at San Albino in Mesilla or any parish where the Neocatechumenal Way has a presence — and you are concerned that your personal or financial information may have been among the records taken, here are practical steps you can take today.
Monitor your financial accounts. If you have automatic giving set up through the Diocese or any parish, if you have made substantial donations with a check or credit card, or if you have bank account information on file with a parish or diocesan office, watch your accounts for unusual activity. This is not paranoia — it is the standard recommendation after any institutional data incident, and it costs you nothing.
Check your credit report. You are entitled to a free credit report from each of the three major bureaus annually. If your Social Security number or financial account information was among the records, early detection of identity theft is the single most effective protection you have.
Document everything. If you receive any communication from the Diocese about this matter — a letter, an email, a parish bulletin announcement — keep it. Do not delete it. These documents may become important if a data-breach claim ever materializes, and the Diocese’s own statements about what happened and when are evidence of what the institution knew and when it knew it.
Ask questions in writing. You have the right to ask your parish or the Diocese directly whether your personal information was among the records affected. Put the question in writing — email is fine — and keep the response. If you do not receive a response, that silence is itself meaningful. An institution that holds your data owes you an answer when that data’s security is compromised.
Do not sign anything without reading it carefully. If any entity — the Diocese, an insurer, or anyone else — sends you a document to sign in connection with this incident, read every word. If it contains a release, a waiver, or a settlement of any kind, do not sign it without speaking to a lawyer first. A release you sign today can extinguish rights you do not yet know you have.
The Evidence-Preservation Clock in Records Disputes
Every legal matter has an evidence clock, and institutional records disputes are no different. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally disappear.
The 60,000 financial records themselves. These are the core evidence. The Diocese states the data is “safe from distribution” — meaning the Diocese believes it has recovered or secured the records. But “safe from distribution” is not the same as “preserved for legal purposes.” If a future civil or criminal action is filed, the records must be available for examination. The Diocese controls them.
Diocese digital access logs and IT audit trails. These are the records that would show who accessed the financial records, when, from what device or IP address, and what was downloaded, printed, or transferred. Server access logs are typically overwritten on rolling cycles — commonly 30 to 90 days — unless a litigation hold is in place. The alleged access occurred in September 2025. If no preservation order was entered and the logs have cycled through their normal retention, the digital trail of exactly how the records were removed may already be degraded or gone. This is the fastest-dying evidence in the entire matter, and it is governed by the Diocese’s own IT systems and retention policies.
Deposition transcripts from the dismissed civil suit. Bishop Baldacchino’s deposition testimony led to the discovery of Williams’ alleged involvement. Those transcripts should be preserved by the court reporter, but they are not under an active litigation hold because the civil case was dismissed. If future litigation is filed, those transcripts may be obtainable — but their availability depends on the court reporter’s retention practices and whether any protective order seals them.
Lavery’s employment records and resignation correspondence. These establish the timeline of access versus resignation and any stated motive. Personnel records are typically retained per employer policy but can be purged post-employment. Lavery resigned September 26, 2025 — the employment file’s retention clock may already be running.
Baldacchino’s May 8, 2026 letter to San Albino parishioners. This is a written document that contains the Diocese’s formal allegations against Williams and the reference to the Voice of the Laity leader as the source of records. It is already a fixed document with no decay risk — but it should be collected and preserved because it represents the Diocese’s official position at a specific point in time.
The principle here is the same one we apply in every case we handle: the day you suspect your rights may have been affected is the day the evidence clock starts working against you. Digital logs overwrite. Personnel files purge. Memories fade. The preservation letter that freezes those records has to go out early, not after months of waiting to see what happens.
The Institutional Playbook: How Organizations Manage Records Disputes
Just as insurance companies run plays in personal injury cases, institutions run plays in records disputes. Here are the ones we see, and here is how to counter each.
Play 1: “The data is safe.” The institution announces the information is secure and the crisis is over. This is the Diocese’s current position — the data is “safe from distribution.” The counter: safe for whom? Safe from distribution is not the same as safe from exposure. If your personal information was among the records, it was already exposed to unauthorized individuals when it was removed. The horse has left the barn. The question is not whether the institution re-secured the records — it is whether your data was viewed, copied, or used while it was outside the institution’s control, and whether the institution is going to tell you that honestly.
Play 2: “We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.” This is the Diocese’s stated position — the Diocese declined to comment publicly, citing ongoing investigation and litigation. The counter: an institution’s duty to notify affected individuals of a data breach is not suspended by its internal investigation. The law recognizes that notification may be delayed briefly to determine scope, but it does not permit indefinite silence. If you ask the Diocese directly whether your information was affected and receive no answer, that is not the same as receiving an answer that it was not.
Play 3: “The records were internal financial documents, not personal information.” The Diocese has declined to elaborate on what type of records were taken. The counter: financial records of a religious organization that collects donations, processes automatic giving, maintains parish registries, and operates schools are inherently intertwined with personal information. A diocesan financial ledger may contain donor names and contribution amounts. A parish financial record may reference families by name. The distinction between “financial records” and “personal information” is not as clean as an institution may want you to believe — and the entity making the claim is the same entity that lost control of the data.
Play 4: The parallel-track shuffle. The Diocese has stated that Williams is subject of “ongoing civil and canonical investigations” and that future steps — “criminal, civil or canonical” — will be determined by the facts. This creates three parallel tracks: the civil legal system, the criminal justice system, and the Church’s internal canonical process. Each has different rules, different standards, and different consequences. The counter: your rights as a parishioner exist in the civil legal system. The canonical process governs whether Williams remains a priest. The criminal process governs whether anyone goes to jail. Neither of those tracks automatically protects your data rights or compensates you if your information was misused. You may need to assert your own interests separately, because no one else in the process is doing it for you.
The Neocatechumenal Way and Institutional Transparency
We want to address the institutional dimension directly because it shapes the legal landscape.
The Neocatechumenal Way is a recognized formation and evangelization program within the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a separate religion or a breakaway sect — it operates within the Church’s formal structure. But its practices, its influence within dioceses, and the resources devoted to it have generated concern in multiple dioceses worldwide, not just Las Cruces. Voice of the Laity, the informal group of Diocese of Las Cruces parishioners, has raised concerns about transparency — specifically about how diocesan finances and assets are being used in connection with the Neocatechumenal Way and its seminaries.
From a legal standpoint, these concerns about financial transparency intersect with the records dispute in a specific way. If the 60,000 records were taken by individuals who believed they were uncovering financial irregularities, that motive may matter in a civil conversion claim — but it does not automatically authorize the removal of records containing other parishioners’ personal information. Whistleblower protections and self-help transparency measures operate under different legal rules than a data breach affecting innocent third parties. You, the parishioner whose data may have been in those files, are not a party to the institutional fight between the Diocese and Voice of the Laity. Your rights exist independently of whoever was right about the Neocatechumenal Way.
This is the part a generalist misses: the institutional conflict explains the why of the records removal, but it does not change the what of your legal rights. Your data was entrusted to the Diocese. If it was removed without authorization, the question of whether the person who took it had good intentions is legally distinct from the question of whether the Diocese failed to protect your information and whether you deserve to be notified.
New Mexico Statutes of Limitation and Your Deadline
New Mexico has a three-year statute of limitations for general tort claims. That is the default deadline for filing a civil lawsuit for most non-contract wrongs. But this matter may involve multiple limitation periods depending on what actually happened and what claim you might have.
If the situation involves a data breach affecting your personal information, the limitation period may run differently — potentially from the date you discovered or should have discovered that your information was compromised, not from the date the records were removed. This is the discovery rule, and it exists because the whole cruelty of a data breach is that you may not know your information was exposed until months or years later, when the harm surfaces.
If the matter involves conversion — the civil tort of wrongfully exercising control over someone else’s property, which is the theory the Diocese’s own lawsuit was built on — New Mexico applies its general tort limitation period.
We are not going to give you a single deadline number and tell you it covers every possibility, because it does not. What we will tell you is this: the records were allegedly accessed in September 2025. It is now 2026. If you have concerns, the safest move is to have a lawyer check the specific deadline that applies to your situation and your state’s current law. Statutes get amended. Rules change. The one constant is that the deadline you miss is the deadline that ends your case permanently — and the court will not reopen it because you were waiting to see what the Diocese would do.
Case Value: What This Is Worth in Dollars
We are going to be honest with you, because honesty is the thing that builds trust and fake numbers destroy it.
As publicly reported, this matter has no personal injury value. No one was physically hurt. The Diocese’s dismissed civil lawsuit sought injunctive relief — return or destruction of records — not monetary damages. There is no verdict, no settlement figure, no dollar amount we can point to and say “this is what a case like this is worth.”
If it is later confirmed that parishioner personally identifiable information was among the 60,000 records and was compromised, the landscape changes. Affected individuals might pursue economic damages related to identity theft, credit-monitoring costs, and potentially statutory penalties under New Mexico’s consumer protection framework. A data-breach class action — if one were viable — would value claims based on the actual harm suffered, the cost of mitigation, and any statutory penalties available. But this is entirely speculative based on what is publicly known. The article does not confirm that parishioner personal information was involved. The Diocese has declined to say.
What we can tell you is that institutional data-breach cases, where they have been pursued, have produced outcomes ranging from credit-monitoring settlements (where affected individuals receive free monitoring services) to substantial monetary settlements where actual identity theft or financial fraud was documented. But every one of those outcomes depended on facts that are not yet established here. We will not manufacture a number to impress you. The honest answer is: the value of your situation depends on facts that have not been confirmed, and the first step is finding out whether your data was affected at all.
The Canonical Dimension: A Parallel Legal System
One aspect of this dispute that a generalist lawyer entirely misses is the canonical law dimension. The Roman Catholic Church operates its own internal legal system — canon law — which runs parallel to civil law. When Bishop Baldacchino suspended Fr. Williams, that was a canonical action, not a civil one. When the Diocese states Williams is subject to “canonical investigations,” that means a separate proceeding under the Church’s own legal code is running alongside the civil and criminal tracks.
This matters for you as a parishioner in several ways. First, the canonical process is not your process. It determines whether Williams remains a priest, what assignment he may or may not receive, and what discipline the Church imposes internally. It does not determine whether your personal data rights were violated. Second, the canonical process is confidential by its nature — it does not produce public records the way civil litigation does, which means information that comes out in the canonical proceeding may never reach you. Third, the Diocese’s statements about Williams are shaped by canonical considerations — a bishop’s public statements about a priest are constrained by both civil liability concerns and canonical procedural requirements.
Understanding this parallel structure is not academic. It is practical. If you are trying to find out what happened to your data, the civil legal system — not the canonical system — is where your rights are enforced. A canonical investigation can run for months or years and produce no public output. Your limitation period in the civil system keeps running regardless.
How We Approach Situations Like This
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes cases in New Mexico, working with local counsel where required. We do not maintain an office in New Mexico, and we do not claim a New Mexico bar admission. What we bring is decades of courtroom experience holding institutions accountable — and the willingness to tell you honestly whether your situation calls for our involvement or for a specialist in data-privacy law.
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he knows how to read an institution’s public statements and hear what is being said, what is being omitted, and what the gap between the two means. When the Diocese says the data is “safe from distribution” but declines to say whether parishioner personal information was involved, Ralph hears the silence. That is the trained instinct of someone who spent years reading official statements for a living before he spent decades attacking them in court.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims are priced, decisions are made, and the calculus of what to disclose and what to withhold gets worked out behind closed doors. He sat on the other side of the table. He knows how institutions and their insurers decide when to notify, when to stonewall, and when to settle quietly. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — which matters in Doña Ana County, where a significant portion of the community is Spanish-dominant. If your family prays in Spanish, Lupe can talk to you in the language you think in.
Our fee is contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if trial begins. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The first consultation is free. We have live staff available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service, but people who can start the conversation now. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.
We handle cases across our practice areas, and we will tell you straight whether this situation fits what we do or whether we are going to point you to the right specialist. What we will never do is sign you up for a claim that does not exist. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was my personal information in the 60,000 records taken from the Diocese?
We do not know, and based on public reporting, the Diocese has not confirmed whether parishioner personal information was among the records. The Diocese has declined to elaborate on what type of records were taken. If you are a parishioner who has donated, enrolled in automatic giving, registered at a parish, or had a child in a parish school, your personal information may theoretically be in diocesan records — but whether it was in these specific 60,000 records is a question only the Diocese can answer. We recommend asking them in writing.
The Diocese said the data is “safe from distribution.” Does that mean my information is safe?
Not necessarily. “Safe from distribution” means the Diocese believes the records are no longer at risk of being shared or published. It does not mean your information was never exposed to unauthorized individuals. If the records were removed and viewed by someone without authorization, your data was already exposed — even if it has since been recovered. The question is whether anyone saw, copied, or used your information while it was outside the Diocese’s control, and the Diocese has not addressed that question publicly.
Can I sue the Diocese if my data was in those records?
It depends on what was in the records, what happened to them while they were out of the Diocese’s control, and whether you suffered any actual harm. New Mexico has a data breach notification statute that may apply if personally identifiable information was acquired by an unauthorized person. Whether you have a viable civil claim depends on facts that are not yet confirmed. The honest answer is: maybe, but we need to know more before we can tell you. That is what the free consultation is for.
No criminal charges have been filed. Does that mean no crime occurred?
No. The Las Cruces Police Department confirmed it received a complaint from the Diocese and is “looking into it,” but the absence of charges at this stage means the investigation is ongoing or that prosecutors have not yet determined whether the facts meet the criminal standard. Civil liability and criminal liability are separate standards. A person can be civilly liable for conversion of records without being criminally prosecuted for theft. The civil case was dismissed by the Diocese — it was not thrown out by a judge on the merits — which means the Diocese chose to end it, not that the claims were invalid.
Why was the Diocese’s lawsuit dismissed?
The Diocese stated it dismissed the lawsuit because it believes the data is now “safe from distribution” and that the lawsuit’s purpose — protecting the data — had been accomplished. A Diocese spokesperson also stated that additional lawsuits may be brought against other individuals. The dismissal was voluntary — the Diocese chose to end the case — not a court ruling that the claims lacked merit. In civil procedure, a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss a case and potentially refile later, subject to rules about timing and procedural limits.
Fr. Williams was suspended but not charged. What does that mean?
Suspension from clerical duties is a canonical action — an internal Church disciplinary measure — not a civil or criminal proceeding. Bishop Baldacchino’s letter stated that Williams is the subject of “ongoing civil and canonical investigations” and that his “disposition and any future assignment are contingent on the findings.” This means the Church has taken preliminary action while investigations proceed, but no civil or criminal court has made any finding against him. He has not been convicted of anything, and under our legal system, he is presumed innocent of any criminal conduct.
What is the Neocatechumenal Way, and why does it matter to this case?
The Neocatechumenal Way is a recognized formation and evangelization program within the Roman Catholic Church, founded in Madrid in 1964, with an estimated one million adherents worldwide. Within the Diocese of Las Cruces, a lay group called Voice of the Laity has raised concerns about the movement’s growing influence, lack of transparency about its operations, and how diocesan finances are being used. Public reporting connects the records dispute to this internal division — Baldacchino’s letter indicated Williams received records from the “leader of the Voice of the Laity.” The institutional conflict provides context for why the records were taken, but it does not change your rights as a parishioner if your personal data was compromised.
How long do I have to take action if my data was affected?
New Mexico has a three-year statute of limitations for general tort claims, but the deadline that applies to a data-breach situation may run from the date you discovered or should have discovered that your information was compromised — not necessarily the date the records were removed in September 2025. Different claims have different limitation periods, and statutes can be amended. The safe move is to speak with a lawyer who can check the specific deadline for your situation under current New Mexico law. The deadline you miss is the deadline that permanently ends your case.
Should I contact the Diocese directly about my concerns?
You can, and we recommend putting any question in writing — email is fine — and keeping the response. If you ask whether your personal information was among the records affected and you receive an answer, that answer is evidence. If you receive no answer, that silence is itself meaningful. What you should not do is sign any document the Diocese or anyone else sends you — a release, a waiver, a settlement — without having a lawyer read it first. A release you sign today can permanently extinguish rights you do not yet know you have.
Is this a personal injury case?
No. This is an institutional civil dispute over financial records. No physical injury has been reported. Our primary practice is personal injury, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death — but the legal principles governing institutional data accountability, evidence preservation, and notification duties are principles we understand. If your situation involves confirmed exposure of personal data, we will tell you honestly whether we are the right firm for you or whether you need a data-privacy specialist. What matters to us is that you get straight answers and real protection, not a sales pitch.
What should I do right now, today?
Three things. First, monitor your financial accounts and credit report for any unusual activity — this costs nothing and is the single most effective protection against identity theft. Second, if you have any communications from the Diocese about this matter, keep them — do not delete or discard anything. Third, if you want to understand your specific situation, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free, confidential consultation. We will listen, tell you what we think, and tell you whether we can help or whether we need to point you somewhere better. That call costs you nothing and commits you to nothing.
If You Are Worried About Your Data, Call Us
Here is what the first call feels like. You dial 1-888-ATTY-911. A real person answers — not a machine, not a call center, not someone reading from a script. You tell them what you know. They listen. If Ralph or Lupe needs to get on the line, they get on the line. You ask your questions. We answer them in plain language — English or Spanish, whichever you think in. We tell you whether we think you have something worth pursuing, or whether we think you should be talking to someone else. And then you decide what to do next. No pressure. No sales pitch. No fee unless we win your case.
The situation in Las Cruces is still developing. Criminal charges may or may not come. The canonical investigation will run on its own timeline. The Diocese may or may not file additional civil suits. Through all of it, the question that matters to you — whether your personal information was exposed and what you can do about it — is a question that deserves a real answer from a real lawyer, not a guess from a website.
Contact us. The call is free. The conversation is confidential. And if we are not the right fit for your situation, we will tell you that plainly — because that is what a lawyer you can trust actually does.
Hablamos Español.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win your case.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — Attorney911 — Legal Emergency Lawyers™.