Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. has carved out an impressive niche in the area of family law. It is the first and most experienced family law firm in New Mexico, serving New Mexico as well as national and international clientele.
Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. and its attorneys are recognized at the state, national, and international level in the area of Family Law. The firm is included in the Martindale Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, and its attorneys are also listed in Best Lawyers in America. Members of the firm belong to such organizations as the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and the American College of Family Trial Lawyers. Many are recognized Specialists in Family Law by the New Mexico Board of Legal Specialization. They regularly lecture at the state and national level, write extensively on the topic of Family Law, and are active in developing legislation which affects Family Law issues.
Noteworthy Supreme Court Cases: Spingola v. Spingola 91 N.M. 737, 580 P.2d 958 (S.Ct. 1978); Bazaldua v. Harrigan 92 N.M. 596, 592 P.2d 512 (S.Ct. 1979); Spingola v. Spingola 93 N.M. 598,603 P.2d 708 (S.Ct. 1979); Buckner v. Buckner 95 N.M. 337, 622 P.2d 242 (S.Ct. 1981); Hagan v. Hardwick 95 N.M. 624 P.2d 26 (S. Ct. 1981); Belosky v. Belosky 97 N.M. 365, 640 P.2d 471 (S.Ct. 1982); Britton v. Britton 100 N.M. 424, 671 P.2d 1135 (S.Ct. 1983); Koppenhaver v. Koppenhaver 101 NM 105, 678.P.2d 1180 (Ct.App. 1984); Blake v. Blake 102 N.M. 354, 695 P.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1985); Fox v. Fox 103 N.M. 155, 703 P.2d 932 (Ct. App. 1985); Pillars v. Thompson 103 N.M. 204, 712P.2d 1366 (S.Ct. 1986); Berry v. Meadows 103 N.M. 761, 713 P.2d 1017 (Ct. App. 1986); Fitzsimmons v. Fitzsimmons 104 N.M. 420, 722 P.2d 671 (Ct. App. 1986); Pacheco v. Quintana 105 N.M. 204, 712P.2d 1366 (S.Ct. 1986)Alfieri v. Alfieri 105 N.M. 373, 733 P.2d 4 (Ct. App. 1987); Mattox v. Mattox 105 N.M. 479, 734 P.2d 259 (Ct.App. 1987); Ruggles v. Ruggles 114 N.M. 63, 31 N.M. St. B. Bull. 718, 834 P.2d 940 (Ct. App. 1992); Gilmore v. Gilmore 106 N.M. 788, 750 P.2d 1114 (Ct. App. 19930; Ruggles v. Ruggles 116 N.M. 52 N.M. 254, 32 N.M. St. B. Bull 861 P.2d (S.Ct. 1993); Barnes v. Shoemaker 117 N.M.59, 868 P.2d 1284 (Ct. App. 1993); Leeder v. Leeder 118 N.M. 603,33 N.M. St. B. Bull, 1458, 884 P.2d 494 (Ct. App. 1994); Ridenour v. Ridenour 120 N.M. 352, 901 P.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1995); Drummond v. Drummond 1997-NMCA-094, 123 N.M. 727, 945 P.2d 457 (Ct. App. 1997); Styka v. Styka 1999-NMCA-002, 126 N.M., 515, 972 P.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1998); Rochester v. Rochester 1999-NMCA-100, 961 N.M., P.2d (Ct. App. 1998).