Justice orders Buckingham to pay $300 sanction

CNMI Supreme Court associate justice John A. Manglona sanctioned Attorney General Edward T. Buckingham yesterday in the amount of $300 for the Office of the Attorney General’s failure to file on time a response brief to an appeal in a criminal case.

“Every citizen of the Commonwealth suffers harm when the OAG is derelict in its duties to the public,” said Manglona in a four-page order.

From here on, Manglona said, “if attorneys continue to miss filing deadlines and otherwise fail to uphold their professional responsibilities, this court will be compelled to take harsher measures.”

Buckingham was directed to pay the sanction to the CNMI Treasury and provide a receipt to the Supreme Court Clerk of Court within 30 days from yesterday.

Manglona’s order came about after the OAG failed to file a brief on time in the case of Simon Sebuu, who had appealed his convictions for theft and criminal mischief.

The OAG’s brief was due on or before May 11, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the Supreme Court clerk of court notified the OAG that it had not filed a brief in the matter.

On June 6, 2011 or 26 days after the filing deadline expired, the OAG submitted a motion to file an out-of-time brief.

In denying the OAG’s petition to file a late brief, Manglona said the motion is “highly disfavored” pursuant to NMI Supreme Court Rule 31-1(b), and the facts surrounding the OAG’s failure to file cannot overcome this standard.

In the June 24, 2011 show-cause order, Manglona said that Buckingham was served with both the briefing schedule and Sebuu’s brief, and thus knew or should have known of the filing deadline.

Buckingham accepted responsibility for the non-performance of the OAG in the matter, and for his own omission.

“I humbly offer a sincere apology to the court for these omissions, for the adverse impact they had on the administration of justice and for the time that this issue has taken away from other responsibilities of this honorable court,” Buckingham said.

He said he recognizes the importance of the procedural deficiencies arising from this matter and commit to future improvement both for himself and the OAG.

In the order issued yesterday, Manglona determined that Buckingham’s conduct warrants sanctions.

Manglona said while Buckingham stated that he delegated the responsibility of checking his email to another employee at the OAG, Buckingham is responsible for supervising his employees and ensuring that he is personally aware of all documents served upon him through the e-filing system.

“The responsibility for the missed filing deadline rests entirely with the attorney general,” Manglona said.

He said this is not the first time that the attorney general has been notified of appellate attorney problems at the OAG.

Manglona said Buckingham was previously apprised of a similar matter on April 9, 2010, when the Clerk of Court sent a letter notifying him that 12 of 17 pending OAG appeals listed assistant attorneys general that have since departed Saipan.

Manglona said a list of those cases accompanied the letter.

“Despite this courtesy letter, the problem remained unresolved over a year later,” the associate justice said.

Manglona said during to show-cause hearing, Buckingham proposed that a monthly meeting between the Supreme Court Clerk of Court and the OAG Civil and Criminal Divisions chiefs would help solve the OAG’s failure to file timely briefs.

“This proposal is not acceptable,” said Manglona, citing that it is not the court’s responsibility to aid the OAG in designing or approving suitable work-flow procedures.

Manglona said that repeated help, as Buckingham suggests, would consume the court’s scarce resources.