ATTORNEY Stephen C. Woodruff has petitioned the U.S, District Court for the NMI for reinstatement to practice law in its court.
Woodruff in his petition stated that the term of suspension in the two disciplinary cases expired on March 27, 2019 and that he is now eligible for reinstatement to practice law.
Woodruff in his declaration also stated that he took the “Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination” or MPRE on Aug. 19, 2019 and obtained a score of 92.
MPRE is a 120-minute, 60-question, multiple-choice examination designed to measure the knowledge and understanding of established standards related to a lawyer’s professional conduct.
According to Woodruff, following a period of probation, he was restored to practice unrestricted practice of law in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 12, 2020.
The lawyer also included three declarations of legal colleagues to support his petition. Among them is the former Attorney General of Hawaii attorney Margery S. Bronster.
Bronster represented the CNMI Retirement Fund members in its class action lawsuit against the CNMI government that resulted in a settlement creating the Settlement Fund. Woodruff was the local counsel in the representation of the retirees in that lawsuit.
In 2018, Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona, designated judges Robert C. Naraja, and Teresa Kim-Tenorio, imposed sanctions against Woodruff similar to the same order disbarring him to practice law in District Court for one year by designated Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on March 28, 2017.
The disciplinary panel suspended him to practice in the NMI District for one year, “the suspension shall run concurrently with the suspension in 13-MC-00004 case from the March 28 issued order.”
Woodruff will not be permitted to enter appearances in new cases during the period of suspension according to the disciplinary order.
The order allowed him to continue representing clients in any open cases which the court believes only the lawsuit of a former doctor against Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation at that time.
On May 23, 2016, Manglona, Naraja, and Kim-Tenorio held a hearing for Woodruff’s disciplinary case for his conduct in representing Murugesan S. Subbaiah who alleged ethical violations of models rules of professional conduct.
Woodruff represented Subbaiah on appeal of a civil judgment against him to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
According to the complaint against Woodruff, he missed deadline for filing his client’s opening brief without having requested an extension of time, and failed to follow up effectively on transcript requests with the district court reporter.
Three months after the filing deadline had passed Subbaiah filed a motion to dismiss, added the complaint.
Woodruff failed to file a response to the motion or to request an extension of time. When the Ninth Circuit dismissed for failure to prosecute, Subbaaiah himself filed a motion to reinstate the case the judges said.
The Ninth Circuit denied it without prejudice and gave appellant leave to re-file it within 28 days along with an opening brief. Woodruff, who had never withdrawn from representing Subbaiah did not refile the motion or file an opening brief the panel judges noted.
Three years later, the Circuit Clerk informed Subbaiah that the case would remain closed because of the failure to file an opening brief according to the order.
The Ninth Circuit order noted that the panel took evidence and heard from witnesses, including the complainant. “Subbaiah testified that he had paid respondent a total of $1,850 to pursue the appeal — $850 in installments and a lump sum payment of $1,000 from a settlement.”
After hearing the arguments of Prosecuting Counsel Rexford C. Kosack and Woodruff, the panel found that the prosecuting counsel had proved by clear and convincing evidence the facts alleged, and that respondent had “violated his duties
of competence and diligence as charged.”
Kosack urged the panel to consider more than a dozen other allegations of similar ethical misconduct by respondent in cases before this and other courts, “especially nine disciplinary complaints that formed the basis for Woodruff’s disbarment in the CNMI.
Woodruff asserted that his client, Subbaiah suffered little or no material harm, “that Subbaiah’s own conduct was not beyond reproach.”
Woodruff also asserted that during the period of the representation he was experiencing serious domestic difficulties leading to a marital separation.
Woodruff also objected to the consideration of any of the disciplinary charges that formed the basis of his CNMI disbarment.
He argued that the CNMI courts procedurally defaulted on him, he did not have the opportunity to confront the evidence against him, and he was denied due process.
On June 15, 2016 the panel held a sanctions hearing and indicated that it was inclined not to consider evidence from the CNMI court cases noting that it would restrict itself to the record from representations in the district court and the Ninth Circuit.
Woodruff was disbarred by the Commonwealth Superior Court on June 7, 2013.
The disbarment order was affirmed by the CNMI Supreme Court on December 9, 2015.
On December 24, 2015, the district court issued a notice of intent to impose reciprocal discipline and order to show cause, and set a reciprocal-discipline hearing for January 22, 2016 in 13-MC-00004 case.
On Jan.22, 2016 The CNMI Supreme Court denied Woodruff’s petition for rehearing.
On Feb 10, 2016 Woodruff filed a notice notifying the district court of his intention to petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
When the district court became aware that no petition had ever been filed, it lifted its stay on reciprocal discipline proceedings and found that reciprocal discipline was warranted and disbarred Woodruff from practicing law in the district on Mar.9, 2018.
