Judge sanctions lawyer for failing to communicate with his client

Superior Court associate judge David A. Wiseman has sanctioned attorney Douglas F. Cushnie with a reprimand or public censure for failing to communicate with his client.

Wiseman, however, determined that the court-appointed disciplinary counsel, George L. Hasselback, failed to prove that Cushnie’s attorney’s fees were unreasonable.

The judge said the publication of the order shall constitute the reprimand for Cushnie.

Wiseman ordered Cushnie to reimburse the court for any expenses incurred from publication, as well as the costs associated with the prosecution of the case.

Elizabeth Blanco Matsunaga filed in 1999 a disciplinary complaint before the court against Cushnie, who used to serve as her counsel in a civil action filed by the former Diamond Hotel. Matsunaga alleged that Cushnie violated his fiduciary and ethical duties to her.

Disciplinary counsel Hasselback asserted that Cushnie violated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a), in that he failed to give his client a reasonable and timely accounting despite repeated demands.

Hasselback alleged that the lawyer also violated Model Rule 1.5(a) in that he collected an unreasonable fee or money from his client, Matsunaga, which he was not entitled to.

In his order issued Wednesday, Wiseman said he only find Cushnie in violation of Model Rule 1.4(a) in that he failed to give his client a timely accounting. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires an attorney to communicate with his or her client.

Wiseman said that in the Matsunaga vs. Matsunaga civil case, the CNMI Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court that Cushnie violated his duty of loyalty by failing to notify Elizabeth Matsunaga of the $8,500 retained in his general account as an advance on a contingency fee.

The Supreme Court also agreed that Cushnie failed to notify Ms. Matsunaga that he was claiming his contingency fee based on the value of the 1.2 hectares freed from the leasehold.

In the disciplinary case, Wiseman said that Cushnie had a duty to communicate with his client and keep her apprised of all matters relating to his services.

“By failing to notify Ms. Matsunaga about the $8,500 fee or that he was placing it in his general account as an advance fee, it goes without saying that respondent failed to communicate with his client,” Wiseman pointed out.

At the hearing, Cushnie claimed it was difficult to speak with Ms. Matsunaga because she did not speak English and as a result, he usually spoke with her son, Frank.

Wiseman said Cushnie owed a duty of loyalty and a duty to communicate with his client, not to Frank.