THE CNMI government has sued Carlsmith law firm and four of its partners for allegedly committing fraud in the Larry Hillblom estate probate.
The government, through Deputy Attorney General Ramona V. Manglona, sued Carlsmith, its managing partner David R. Nevitt, and partners David S. Olson, John D. Osborn and Donald C. Williams.
The government also named co-defendants the Carlsmith’s insurers, Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society, Inc.; Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society (Bermuda) Ltd.; and 50 unnamed co-insurers and guarantors.
The CNMI in its lawsuit filed on Friday asked the Superior Court to order the defendants to pay compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount sufficient “to punish the respondents and deter future wrongful conduct.”
Manglona said the conduct by respondents prevented the Probate Court from having complete and truthful information which caused the court and the government to suffer damages, including the cost of unnecessary court hearings and administration, monetary damages and increased governmental costs.
But Carlsmith maintained that the government’s action “arises out of the unconstitutional attempt by the CNMI to force the law firm to foot the bill for the commonwealth’s declining economic circumstances.”
Last May 14, Carlsmith and one of its members filed separate but similar lawsuits against the CNMI government, Manglona and a law firm for allegedly threatening to sue them if they would not pay $5.5 million for their involvement in the Hillblom estate probate.
Manglona said the Carlsmith law firm was retained by the Hillblom estate through Bank of Saipan shortly after Hillblom died in an airplane crash in May 1995.
She said the respondents knew shortly after Hillblom’s death that there was a high probability that an heir claimant, Junior Larry Hillbroom, was in fact the son of Hillblom.
Respondents were told that as early as 1990, Hillblom’s close friends and business associates were aware of the assertions that Junior was Hillblom’s son.
Carlsmith represented the estate before and after its appointment until the court removed the firm on or about Aug. 20, 1996.
Manglona said the respondents’ conduct and activities included the following:
• Obstructing the collecting and testing of DNA evidence.
• Failing to preserve evidence contrary to their fiduciary duties as estate counsel.
• Withholding relevant information from the court and providing false information to the court.
• Intimidating potential witnesses to change prior statements which were more favorable to heirship claims.
• Disobeying direct court orders for them to cooperate with heirship claimants in the collecting and testing of DNA materials.
• Putting in place a procedural scheme wherein they insisted that limited available DNA material be split, thereby minimizing the changes of any usable DNA material being extracted.
• Advancing defenses to heirship claims in court proceedings based on facts which they knew were untrue.
