James Robert Kingman
JUDGE Pro Tem Arthur Barcinas said Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
In a 10-page ruling issued on Monday, Judge Barcinas also denied former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres’s motion to dismiss or disqualify the Office of the Attorney General due to unauthorized practice of law.
According to Torres’s defense team, Kingman practiced law in the CNMI without taking the mandatory Commonwealth oath.
Kingman is the lead prosecutor in the case filed by the AG’s office against the former governor, who was charged with 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft relating to the issuance of airline tickets for business class, first class, or other premium class travel for himself and/or Diann T. Torres, his wife.
The OAG also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a legislative subpoena.
The former governor has denied the charges.
In his order, Judge Barcinas said the unauthorized practice of law has not occurred in this case.
“As Attorney Kingman has appeared before this court and filed multiple motions since his pro hac vice admission, there is no dispute that Attorney Kingman has been practicing law in the Commonwealth. There is also no dispute that Attorney Kingman did not take the Oath of Admission until July 13, 2023, when he was provisionally admitted to the bar as an employee of the AG,” the judge said.
The question before the court, he added, is whether the oath is actually a mandatory requirement in order to practice law pro hac vice in the Commonwealth.
“The Supreme Court admitted Attorney Kingman as a pro hac vice attorney without his being required to take the oath beforehand,” the judge said.
He finds this consistent with the interpretation that pro hac vice attorneys are not governed by Rule 75-2.
“The pro hac vice process is an extremely limited and particularized path of entry to practice within the Commonwealth judicial system, one which exists as an alternative to bar examination, and one which is ultimately controlled and regulated not by the Board of Law Examiners, as other paths would be, but by the Supreme Court itself,” Judge Barcinas said.
“In approving Attorney Kingman’s pro hac vice application, the Supreme Court has found him to be in standing with the pro hac vice requirements, and it is not the place of this Court to usurp its findings. Therefore, the Court finds that Attorney Kingman was not required to take the oath upon pro hac vice admission, and that consequently not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law,” the judge added.
He also found that Kingman’s July 13, 2023 oath and failure to affix his bar ID number are “not dispositive to this issue.”
“Defendant argues that the fact that Attorney Kingman took the oath on July 13, 2013, is evidence that he had been practicing law illegally. However, the court does not find this to be a strong argument that the oath is mandatory. Attorney Kingman took the oath because he began his employment with the Attorney General’s office as a Rule 75-2 Assistant Attorney General, which specifically requires the oath by statute. The court does not find that Kingman having to take the oath as a Rule 75-2 attorney is dispositive of a finding that the oath is mandatory for Rule 75-1 attorneys,” Judge Barcinas said.
“Defendant further argues that the terms of Kingman’s Special Prosecutor contract demonstrate that his services are not temporary,” the judge added.
But the court “found that, if anything, the terms of Kingman’s contract demonstrate the temporary nature of Kingman’s representation, as it explicitly states that ‘this representation does not extend to any post-trial motions or appeal of Criminal Case No. 22-0050,’ ” referring to CNMI v Ralph Anthony Deleon Guerrero Torres.
