Defense: High court’s ruling does not resolve validity of Kingman’s contract

The defense team of former governor Ralph DLG Torres says the Supreme Court’s ruling that denied the former governor’s request to revoke the admission of James Robert Kingman as the special prosecutor in his case still does not satisfy the question of validity regarding his contract.

Torres’ lawyers say the Supreme Court’s ruling still does not resolve some of their issues like the validity of Kingman’s contract with the Office of the Attorney General.

Another issue that has yet to be resolved, Torres’ counsel states, is the issue of whether the OAG even possesses the power to appoint a special prosecutor.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on the pro hac vice reconsideration motion resolved a few unclear issues regarding the pro hac vice admission process. However, the decision does not resolve the issues of the validity of the special prosecutor contract under the Commonwealth procurement regulations or whether the attorney general possesses the power and authority to appoint a special prosecutor, especially when the attorney general has a conflict of interest in the underlying litigation,” said the defense.

James Robert Kingman

Torres’ defense stated that these issues have now been brought before the Superior Court and may even be brought before the Supreme Court again.

The defense did acknowledge that the Supreme Court correctly noted that the motion did not accuse James Kingman of any improper conduct. Instead, the motion was based solely on deficiencies associated with the procedure for a pro hac vice admission.

“While the [high] court acknowledged that the pro hac vice application suffered from some procedural deficiencies as Torres asserted, the deficiencies were not deemed material enough to warrant reconsideration of the pro hac vice admission. Most importantly, though, the court ruled that a party in the underlying litigation, like Torres, has standing to object to or contest a pro hac vice application or admission despite the prosecution’s argument that Torres lacked standing,” said the defense.

In addition, the defense stated that Torres is still pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, specifically the part where they indicated that Torres has standing to challenge the special prosecutor’s pro hac vice admission if the special prosecutor engages in improper conduct.

“Equally important, the ruling indicates that a party with standing can challenge a pro hac vice admission if the attorney with a pro hac vice admission engages in misconduct at any time during the period of the pro hac vice admission. This suggests that the conduct and action of an attorney admitted pro hac vice is limited to the scope of the pro hac vice admission. Despite the Supreme Court denying Torres’ reconsideration motion, Torres is pleased with the court indicating that he has standing to challenge the special prosecutor’s pro hac vice admission if the special prosecutor engages in improper conduct,” the defense stated.

The defense team has filed a petition for judicial review with the Superior Court regarding the validity of the special prosecutor’s contract. Torres, in his petition, is asking the court to find the contract invalid for noncompliance with the Commonwealth’s procurement regulations.

Named as respondents in this petition are the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance.