Previous Story
Atty. Banes faces disciplinary complaint
Lawyer says allegations are disputed
Superior Court-appointed disciplinary counsel Mitchell F. Thompson has filed a disciplinary complaint against attorney David G. Banes for allegedly violating a provision of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct when he apparently revealed information learned in the discussions with a prospective client.
When asked for comment yesterday, Banes said the allegations of the complaint are disputed and that he looks forward to a resolution of the matter once all the facts and law are known.
The Guam-based Thompson said Amjad Farhoud filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Committee of the CNMI Bar Association in August 2011.
Thompson said the Disciplinary Committee determined that Banes had violated Rule 1.18 of the Model Rules, and referred the matter to the Superior Court for disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer.
Thompson said the court then appointed him to prosecute this matter.
Thompson is a partner of Thompson Gutierrez & Alcantara law firm. He has been a member of the Guam Bar Association Ethics Committee for a number of years. He is currently the chair of the GBA Ethics Committee.
The disciplinary counsel submitted in court the complaint under seal last June 2. Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho, however, ruled on that same day that after reviewing it, the court “finds no good cause to seal the matter.”
On Feb. 14, 2015, the CNMI Supreme Court adopted the new Rules of Attorney Discipline and Procedure.
Camacho said the new rules take the position that disciplinary complaints against attorneys are public proceedings.
The new rules, the judge said, took effect immediately and there are no transitional language for cases initiated but are later filed after the adoption of the new Rules.
Camacho said prior rules required the complaint to be filed under seal until the court issued its order (unless it involves private reprimand).
According to the complaint, in March 2011, Farhoud consulted with another lawyer in Banes’ office as to possible legal representation regarding a dispute between Farhoud and Freedom Air, his former employer.
Thompson said at this initial meeting, Farhoud had been told to return in a few days to meet with Banes.
Thompson said a few days later, Farhoud went to his appointment with Banes and during this meeting he discussed issues related to his former employer.
Thompson said at the end of the meeting, Banes told Farhoud that his office could not represent him as to his potential claim against his former employer, Freedom Air.
Thompson said that, on Aug. 24, 2011, the deposition of Farhoud was taken in connection with a lawsuit filed by former Superior Court Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama against Aviation Services Ltd., owner of Freedom Air.
Lizama sued Aviation Services for negligence and violation of the CNMI Consumer Protection Act. He alleged that he nearly fell out of the Freedom Air’s plane when the door suddenly opened while the aircraft was airborne during a flight from Saipan to Tinian in 2009. Banes is counsel for Lizama in that case.
Thompson said Banes represented Lizama at the Farhoud deposition, which had been noticed by the defendant in that case.
Thompson said during the deposition, Banes asked several questions to Farhoud that revealed information which Farhoud had disclosed to Banes during their meeting in March 2011.
Thompson said Banes’ disclosure of this information violated Rule 1.18(b) of the Model Rules which provides that “…a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.”
The disciplinary counsel asserted that Banes violated the provision of the Model Rules and that imposition of discipline is warranted.
A CNMI court marshal last June 2 served to Banes’ office the summons issued by clerk of court directing the lawyer to answer the complaint within 20 days.
Saipan Tribune learned that the deadline for filing a reply was on Monday. A check by Saipan Tribune yesterday revealed that Banes has yet to file an answer.
