Clifford disqualified as disciplinary counsel in matter vs Woodruff

CNMI Supreme Court Associate Justice Perry B. Inos has disqualified Thomas E. Clifford as disciplinary counsel in the disciplinary cases filed against disbarred attorney Stephen C. Woodruff.

In an order yesterday, Inos said that Clifford’s disqualification is necessary because of conflict of interest.

“Although Clifford is disqualified because of a conflict of interest, the disqualification in no way implies that he acted improperly in carrying out his duties as disciplinary counsel,” said Inos in the footnote of his order.

Inos determined that Clifford’s representation of Kenneth and Wanlapha Warfle in their small-claims against Woodruff meant that Clifford was not—and could not—be disinterested in the concurrent disciplinary proceeding founded in part on the Warfles’ disciplinary complaint.

The Warfle couple hired Woodruff to file Wanlapha’s application for resident alien immigration status. The couple claimed that Woodruff botched the application and they filed a disciplinary complaint with the CNMI Bar and a small-claim in Superior Court.

The Warfles hired Clifford for the small-claims suit. Clifford represented the couple for free. The suit is ongoing, but the parties are negotiating a settlement.

With Clifford’s disqualification, Inos voided Clifford’s motion to dismiss Woodruff’s appeal.

Inos will appoint a new counsel to prosecute Woodruff’s appeal. After the appointment, he will issue a new date for the response brief.

Woodruff is appealing to reverse Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman’s default judgment in the disciplinary case that resulted in Woodruff’s disbarment from the practice of law in local courts.

In his disbarment order on June 7, 2013, Wiseman found the lawyer to have 44 violations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The disciplinary case contains nine complaints, including one filed by the Warfles.

In his motion to disqualify, Woodruff argued that disqualification is necessary because Clifford’s representation of the Warfles in the related small-claims suit constitutes a conflict of interest.

In opposing the motion, Clifford argued that his representation in the Warfles does not create a conflict of interest because the value of the small-claims is small, he was not compensated for representing the couple, and the purpose of his representation in the Warfles and this matter are the same: to minimize Woodruff’s future harm to the public.