District court disbars Woodruff

U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood has disbarred lawyer Stephen C. Woodruff from practice of law before the federal court.

In her order on Thursday imposing reciprocal discipline, Tydingco-Gatewood said that Woodruff was given fair notice and an opportunity to be heard by the CNMI courts.

The judge’s order shall be effective 30 days after Thursday when it was entered.

Woodruff is already barred from practicing law in the CNMI Superior Court.

Tydingco-Gatewood said there is no such infirmity of proof as to give rise to a clear conviction that the CNMI courts judgment cannot be accepted as final, and that no grave reason exists not to impose the same discipline in federal court.

Woodruff is not allowed to accept any new retainer or engage as the attorney for another in any new case.

However, during the 30-day period, Woodruff may complete on behalf of any client all matters which were pending on the entry date.

Within 10 days, Woodruff is required to notify and advise clients about the disciplinary action. He may not apply for reinstatement until at least two years.

Tydingco-Gatewood ordered the clerk to publish the notice of disbarment in local newspapers.

On June 7, 2013, Superior Court then-associate judge David A. Wiseman disbarred Woodruff for 44 violations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment in 2015.

On Jan. 22, 2016, the district court notified Woodruff that it intends to impose reciprocal discipline.

Since then, Woodruff’s case has dragged on through the CNMI and federal judiciary until Feb. 10, when the district court held the reciprocal-discipline hearing.

Woodruff asserted that “the imposition of reciprocal discipline, particularly the sanction of disbarment, would be unwarranted and unjust.”

In her disbarment order, Tydingco-Gatewood said the problem with Woodruff’s argument is that the CNMI gave him the notice and opportunity to be heard yet Woodruff simply failed to avail himself of them.

The judge pointed out that she reviewed all the filings and orders in the Superior Court disciplinary case and finds no fundamental unfairness in the process.

Tydingco-Gatewood pointed out that Woodruff admitted to receiving service of the initial complaint and the first amended complaint.

The judge said Woodruff’s excuse for failing to respond was that he failed to record the date of service of the first amended complaint and “never became mentally clear on when my response was due”—despite the fact that the prosecutor had expressly noted on the first page of the first amended complaint that a response would be due 10 days after service.

The Superior Court judge denied Woodruff’s motion, saying his reason did not amount to excusable neglect or other good cause.

Tydingco-Gatewood stated that what she sees is an attorney blaming everyone except himself for his own lack of diligence.

“He is a busy man with many obligations; his staff failed to mark down the date of service; the Commonwealth Supreme Court did not give him the extra time he needed,” the judge said, adding that this pattern repeated itself in the reciprocal-discipline action.

Tydingco-Gatewood said the district court gave Woodruff until Jan. 14, 2017, to file a written memorandum in opposition to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

On Jan. 12, 2017, Woodruff asked for two more weeks. The district court gave him one week.

Woodruff missed the Jan. 20 deadline and submitted a memorandum on Jan. 22.

The district court struck the memorandum, but allowed Woodruff to refile it, if accompanied by a declaration showing good cause.

In the accompanying declaration, Woodruff bemoaned the fact that the court had not found his reasons for a two-week extension to be sufficiently compelling.

“As anticipated, I had little time in the following week to complete the memorandum. I did not review the order, which I had read quickly when issued, and failed to recall the 3pm deadline. I ultimately ended up removing whole sections I was able to complete, before finally submitting the document to the court,” Woodruff said.

Tydingco-Gatewood said these are similar to reasons Woodruff made for missing the deadline to respond to the first amended complaint—blaming the court for failing to appreciate how busy he was and laying any deficiencies in the quality of the memorandum at the court’s feet.

“Once again, with his privilege to practice law at risk, he missed a deadline by failing to pay it the attention it deserved,” the judge noted.

Tydingco-Gatewood said Woodruff’s failure to attend to his own disciplinary cases mirrors the misconduct alleged in the first amended complaint.

Tydingco-Gatewood said a client’s green card application was denied when respondent failed to reschedule an interview with U.S. immigration authorities.

In one labor case, the judge said, Woodruff failed to file additional documents required to perfect an appeal.

“These and other cases show a pattern of lack of diligence and failure to communicate that caused substantial harm to clients,” the judge said.

Tydingco-Gatewood said the same pattern showed itself in Woodruff’s conduct in his reciprocal-discipline case.

Last February, the court took Woodruff at his own word that he would be petitioning for certiorari.

“That expectation was misplaced,” said Tydingco-Gatewood, adding that Woodruff also failed to inform the court when he was disbarred by the Hawaii Supreme Court and when he was suspended from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.