Toribiong in a phone interview yesterday said that he accepts responsibility for what he failed to do.
“It’s my fault and it’s a lesson for me too as a lawyer. This is my first violation and I hope this will also serve a lesson for other attorneys. I hope they won’t suffer the same mistakes that I did,”he said.
Toribiong said he would abide by the court’s order, specifically ordering him to obtain a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam within one year.
Toribiong was also ordered by the court to pay legal fees and costs of investigating and prosecuting the action.
The court said Disciplinary Counsel shall submit an accounting of her fees and costs to the Disciplinary Tribunal within 30 days.
Toribiong said he will take the exam on August 5 and will pay the legal fees.
Toribiong was charged with violations of the Court’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
He was specifically charged with violating Palau Disciplinary Rule 2 (h) and ABA Model Rule 1.7 (a) (1) and (2) by representing in a criminal case, two clients with concurrent conflicting interests.
The court’s order stated that Toribiong represented Ting Feng Chiang and Lolita Pamintuan, in consolidated criminal charges.
Chiang was charged with advancing prostitution, people trafficking, exploiting a trafficked person, violation of the Foreign Investment Act, aiding and abetting violation of the Foreign Investment Act, violation of the Tax Code, violation of Labor laws and money laundering, Chiang was released from jail after the court ruled that he did not get adequate representation during the trial.
Pamintuan was charged with advancing prostitution and people trafficking.
Toribiong during the bail hearing notified the court that he was representing the two defendants and promised to advise the court if he discovered a conflict in his dual representation.
During the trial, Toribiong did not put Chiang on the witness stand, believing that his testimony would be incriminating but had Pamintuan testified, hoping that her testimony would distance both herself and Chiang from the criminal operations alleged to have taken place at Carnival Bar, owned by Chiang.
However during cross- examination, Pamintuan’s testimony incriminated Chiang.
incriminated Chiang.
Disciplinary Counsel Clara Kalscheur filed a complaint against Toribiong and the matter was argued before Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Pro Tem Rose mary Skebong and Associate Justice Pro Tem Honora E. Remengesau Rudimch.
The court in their sanction order said that Toribiong never obtained written, informed consent to the multiple representation from either party as required by the law.
“Respondent claims that Chiang should have known of the multiple representation because of the proximity of Pamintuan at trial but nothing short of written consent satisfies the Model Rules. There was a significant risk of a conflict in respondent’s dual representations and even if this risk was reasonable, he did not obtain written consent from his clients in violation of Model Rule 1.7,”the court stated.
Toribiong said he acted in good faith when he represented Chiang and Pamintuan.
“I believes at that time that Pamintuan would be of help to Chiang. I did not foresee that her testimony would incriminate him. I tried to help both because I believe both would have helped each other,”Toribiong said.
“The court’s decision was a default judgment and it was my fault because I failed to file my response. I was off-island at that time and my staff failed to inform me of the complaint,”he said.
