Judge suspends attorney Yana

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman on Friday suspended attorney Reynaldo O. Yana from practicing law for improper conduct by bringing adoption cases to Rota to have another judge handle the cases.

“The court cannot and will not tolerate such blatantly improper conduct by an attorney practicing in the Commonwealth Superior Court, as was practiced by Mr. Yana. A message must be sent to the legal community and to the public that such conduct will be punished,” said Wiseman in the order.

Wiseman said the 30-day suspension would commence Friday.

The judge directed Yana to send a notice to any and all of his clients informing them of his suspension and provide such notice and a list of recipients to the court within 30 days from yesterday.

He required Yana to take a course within six months from yesterday on Model Rules of Professional Conduct or the Professional Ethics required of attorneys engaged in the practice of law.

Wiseman ordered the lawyer to pay disciplinary counsel Thomas E. Clifford’s attorney fees and costs in prosecuting the matter.

According to court records, the Superior Court appointed attorney Clifford to prosecute the attorney discipline complaint against Yana.

Yana did not respond to the complaint. Clifford asked the court that the charges be deemed admitted since Yana did not respond.

The NMI Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee investigated the matter and determined that Yana had violated a number of Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Naraja assigned the case to Wiseman in February 2008.

In his order, Wiseman said the charges deemed admitted by Yana constitute violations of sections of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Under MRPC 3.3(a), Wiseman pointed out, a lawyer has a duty of candor toward the court, and this includes disclosure of all material facts where the non-disclosure of such facts is inherently misleading and deceptive.

The judge also cited five other sections of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Wiseman said the rules were violated by Yana’s actions, which began when the lawyer moved to disqualify Superior Court associate judge Kenneth Govendo from hearing 11 adoption cases.

Wiseman said Yana later withdrew his motion on one case, and so his motion, and this complaint relate to the remaining 10 cases.

Naraja denied the motion in his July 17, 2006 order to disqualify Govendo.

Yana and his client did not appeal the denial order to the Supreme Court.

Wiseman said that on Jan. 31, 2007, Yana filed a notice of hearing purporting to set the 10 cases for hearing on Rota before then Superior Court associate judge Juan T. Lizama.

Wiseman said Yana telephoned Judge Lizama’s clerk and inquired whether Lizama was going to hear cases on Rota on Feb. 2, 2007.

The clerk confirmed that Lizama would indeed hear cases on Rota on that date.

Wiseman said Yana never informed the clerk that he had purported to notice the 10 adoption cases for hearing on Rota.

The judge said that during this conversation Yana never informed the clerk that he had previously moved to disqualify Govendo from hearing the 10 cases and that Naraja had denied the motion.

Wiseman said that, on Feb. 2, 2007, on Rota, Judge Lizama called the 10 adoption cases for a hearing. Lizama granted six of the cases and continued the other four cases to March 2, 2007.

When Naraja learned that the 10 adoption cases had been noticed for hearing on Rota, the presiding judge ordered that the remaining adoption cases be taken off calendar and rescheduled to the Saipan Family Court Docket calendar before Judge Govendo.

Wiseman said Yana subsequently purported to withdraw the four remaining adoption cases.

But Yana, according to Wiseman, re-filed the court cases on the Rota docket with new numbers indicating the cases were Rota cases.

Wiseman said Yana also filed two new adoption cases as Rota cases even though the parties to the case were residing on Saipan at the time.

The judge said Yana admitted to these facts during the course of the Disciplinary Committee’s investigation.

Wiseman said Yana also admitted that he did not inform Lizama of the denial order.

Wiseman said it was not a legally permissible or ethical option for Yana to ignore the denial order, wait six months for the issue to become less visible, and then notice the cases for hearing two days later on another island and before another judge.

Wiseman said these all happened without ever disclosing to any of the Superior Court personnel involved in the matter that Yana was doing this because, despite the denial order, judge Govendo was “legally unavailable” to hear the cases.

The judge said Yana’s failure to disclose the circumstances regarding the noticing of the cases for Rota was deceptive and misleading, and a violation of MRPC provisions.

“Mr. Yana’s actions constitute an effort, as he admits, to circumvent the effect of the denial order,” Wiseman said, adding that such lawyer’s effort was designed to disrupt the conduct of the Superior Court.

Yana and attorney Antonio Atalig have been incarcerated since March 2005, 2008 due to the contempt-of-court charges issued by Govendo in connection with the Malite probate. Govendo also suspended the two lawyers from practicing law in the Superior Court.

Last Aug. 15, Govendo allowed Yana and Atalig to leave the Department of Corrections for a few days each week to prepare a detailed account of their work with the Malite estate probate.

The CNMI Supreme Court recently vacated the two attorneys’ suspensions from practicing law because the trial court did not follow the rules and procedures governing attorney discipline.

The two lawyers were still reporting to DOC, [I]Saipan Tribune[/I] learned Friday.