THE Senate has rejected the proposed amendments to the rules of attorney discipline and procedure that the CNMI Supreme Court submitted to the Legislature.
In a letter to Chief Justice Alexandro Castro on Dec. 18, Senate Clerk Dolores Bermudes informed the judiciary that the Senate rejected the amendments by a unanimous vote on the same date.
Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 of the CNMI Constitution, Chief Justice Castro submitted to Senate President Edith Deleon Guerrero and Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez a copy of the proposed amendments to the rules for approval.
The proposed amendments would provide a new procedure for attorneys who fail to pay their annual bar membership fee of $250, court fines and fees. They would also subject an attorney to discipline for, among other violations, “failing to comply with the administrative requirements for continued licensure in the CNMI such as, but not limited to, payment of bar dues or court fees, and fulfillment of continuing legal education.”
In his letter to the Legislature, the chief justice said under the proposed amendments, attorneys could be placed on an administrative suspension, “which is a lesser penalty to the current suspension leading to disbarment.”
Also, the proposed amendments would reduce to three bar members from five the requirement to form a quorum and clarify that bar committee members are elected by a majority of election participants instead of all attorneys. The proposed amendments would also allow members to attend meetings via videoconference.
NMI Bar Association President Charity R. Hodson said their group, including their disciplinary committee, supports the adoption of the proposed rules.
But Variety learned that some lawyers wrote separate letters to the Legislature to express their opposition to the proposed amendments.
Attorneys Robert Myers Jr. and Shelli Neal, who have pending disciplinary actions in the Superior Court and are represented by attorney Michael Dotts, have asked the court to dismiss the complaint against them
Both argued, among other things, “that the members of the Disciplinary Committee were not elected by the majority of active members of the CNMI Bar, rendering their actions in investigating and referring the matter for prosecution ultra vires or without authority….”
