Camacho orders disbarment of suspended lawyer Quichocho

Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho has ordered the disbarment of suspended lawyer Ramon King Quichocho Jr. from the practice of law in CNMI courts for professional misconduct in representing his then-client, Jung Ja Kim.

In a 50-page decision on Tuesday, Camacho said that no lesser sanction would match the severity of Quichocho’s misconduct.

Ramon King Quichocho Jr.

“The attorney-client relationship is grounded in trust, and it is that trust upon which the validity of the entire legal system depends,” the judge said.

In this case, Camacho said, Quichocho’s acts of exploiting Kim on multiple levels undermined not only her trust in him but the public’s trust in the legal profession and the legal system.

Such conduct, Camacho said, is not tolerated in an attorney practicing before CNMI courts.

Quichocho was ordered to pay all costs and fees as set forth in the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.

Should he apply for readmission to the CNMI Bar, he must provide proof of restitution to Kim as a condition of readmission, Camacho said.

As Quichocho is currently suspended from the practice of law in the CNMI, Camacho required him to submit to the court an affidavit on or before July 30, 2014.

Just on Tuesday, Camacho ordered Quichocho to explain why he should not be held in contempt for not filing an affidavit in relation to his prior suspension.

Under Rule 15(d) of the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules and Procedures, within 10 days after the effective date of a disbarment or suspension order, the disbarred or suspended attorney shall file with the Superior Court an affidavit showing, among other things, that he or she has complied with the provisions of the order and rules.

According to Camacho’s order of disbarment, the disciplinary hearing against Quichocho in Kim’s case ran from June 30, 2014, to July 1, 2014. Attorney Mark A. Scoggins was the court-appointed disciplinary counsel. Quichocho did not appear.

The CNMI Bar Association Disciplinary Committee had forwarded the case to court. The case arises out of conduct and actions occurring over the course of a two-year attorney-client relationship between Quichocho and Kim and several companies that she controlled.

Between March 2007 and March 2009, Quichocho allegedly engaged in multiple improper and unfair business transactions with Kim; had inappropriate and nonconsensual sex with her; violated his duty of loyalty by ignoring conflicts of interest; and improperly shared management and control of his law office with his wife, a non-attorney.

When viewed in its entirely, Camacho said the manner in which Quichocho provided legal services and repeatedly exploited Kim’s interest for his own gain indicates a lack of competence and honesty requisite to practice law.

Camacho said that based on the filings, evidence presented, and applicable standards of professional conduct, the court finds clear and convincing evidence that Quichocho’s acts constituted professional misconduct, in violations of the rules governing attorneys.

“The appropriate sanction for these violations is disbarment,” the judge said.

Camacho found clear and convincing evidence that Quichocho and Kim had a sexual relationship that did not exist prior to the attorney-client relationship.

Camacho said that evidence presented at the hearing clearly and convincingly demonstrates that at least two of the instances of sex took place without Kim’s consent.

“This indicates another level of professional misconduct,” he said.

Camacho said that Quichocho violated Model Rule 1.8(j) by instructing his wife, Frances, to have sex with Kim.

Last May 28, Camacho suspended Quichocho’s license to practice law for three years for using a legal tool to harass a former client to obtain payment.

On Tuesday, Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman ordered a public reprimand against Quichocho for professional misconduct in connection with another Bar complaint filed by a couple.

Last March 28, a federal jury reached a unanimous verdict, holding Quichocho, his wife, and his law firm liable to pay $2.4 million in damages to Kim, who filed a racketeering lawsuit against them.

The jury, however, found Kim liable to pay Quichocho and his law firm $48,221.67 in legal fees.